Paul Ryan and the New Politics of Sadism

[spooked911]

Great piece--

"We are in an age dominated on one side by the New Politics of Sadism. Hurtful policies are enacted, not because of any logical benefit they might bring, but specifically because they hurt people the Republicans want to hurt. The thoroughgoing abandonment of the notion of a political commonwealth, cheered on by degrees since the elevation of Ronald Reagan and whatever ideas people could cram into his empty head, has reached the point among American conservatives where it is now the kind of faith you find in the most unshakable of perversions. It manifests itself everywhere. It's expressed politely by people like that intolerable foof, David Brooks, who's never taken a position in his life that cost him so much as a dinner invitation. On the radio, and on cable news, it's expressed crudely by people who are far more honest about their contempt for their fellow citizens.

And the sadism is running now through the institutions of government. We have made our peace with torture to the extent that support for it now is as much a litmus test for being a Republican as opposition to abortion is. (The Democrats, of course, choose to deplore it without condemning it.) The Supreme Court's majority opinion in the recent Thompson V. Connick decision — delivered, fittingly enough, by Justice Clarence Thomas, the walking Freudian petri dish who once opined that he saw nothing wrong with chaining inmates to a post in the hot sun — pretty much advises a man who was stuck on death row for fourteen years because of egregious prosecutorial misconduct to stop wasting the Supreme Court's time and be grateful his sorry ass wasn't fried a decade ago.

And, in the Congress, there is Congressman Paul Ryan, who is angling right now to make a career out of political sadism.

Make no mistake: Ryan is a thoroughgoing nutball, as bug-house crazy on economics as Peter King is on Muslims and Steve King is on anyone swarthier than himself. He is a lifelong adherent to the doctrines of Ayn Rand, which ought to disqualify anyone from ever being taken seriously enough to park cars by anyone over the age of fifteen. In terms of their connection to actual human reality, the difference between the doctrines of Ayn Rand and the doctrines of L. Ron Hubbard is not substantial, and the fervor of their acolytes is almost exactly the same. Picking Paul Ryan to handle your political economy is tantamount to electing Tom Cruise to be pope."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-budget-plan-5519000#ixzz1Ipr1THaO

[opihimoimoi]

1. He is deluded FUBAR

[liberal N proud]

2. And how many voters are masochist

Those who vote against their own best interest time and again.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. Often because some god-damned motherfucker told them to

...from a pulpit.

[trotsky]

3. A great piece indeed.

I love this quote:

When Paul Ryan dreams of a free nation, it is one in which the seventy-two-year-old spouses of seventy-five-year-old patients are free to go out and shop in a rigged insurance market for the $100,000-plus they're going to need over a lifetime of tending to that patient. If they insisted on feeding themselves, and even risking the odd vacation, over the course of their working lives and they failed to anticipate what might befall them, then the spouse is going to have to starve and the patient is just going to have to sit there in his own filth, until market forces determine that they should die.

So very true.

[dkf]

4. This sounds to me like what a teenager would say upon learning their parent had lost their job

and couldn't afford the cable bill anymore.

Sometimes the reality is that overspending has left painful debts. If Democrats want to keep entitlements as is, they need to show a detailed plan for how it will be paid for. If they can show that keeping things as is will be feasible that would be half the battle.

[trotsky]

5. "Sometimes the reality is that overspending has left painful debts"

Last I checked, we've had two wars going on that have wasted a couple trillion dollars. How to pay for the social safety net? End the fucking wars, cut the Pentagon budget, and permanently rescind the woefully ill-advised Bush tax cuts.

Done.

[dkf]

7. Ending the wars won't balance the budget.

And this Libya thing doesn't help one bit either.

I would like to see if it is feasible for the top 2% to pay for everything. What rate would it take to balance the budget, what increasing rate would it take to cope with increasing medicare, medicaid and social security costs. What rate would it take to pay for the increasing interest costs on our bonds? Can they really pay for all these things?

If not, what tax rate will the middle class need to take on? Do they think it is a good trade off for the services they will get?

Everything has a price tag. We should know what it is so we can decide whether to support it or not.

[trotsky]

8. Good thing that wasn't the only thing I said, then, huh?

A lot of conservatives look back fondly on the economic boom times of the 1950s and 60s. Do you recall what the top marginal income tax rate was during those decades?

If not, what tax rate will the middle class need to take on? Do they think it is a good trade off for the services they will get?

I dunno, I look at my paycheck and see what's being withheld for health insurance and wonder if that's a good trade-off for the "services" I get. The vast majority of people in every other modern industrialized country sure seem to appreciate their safety net, even if it results in higher taxes. Overall, they end up better off.

[dkf]

9. Those tax rates were like corporate rates nowadays...loopholes galore.

They could put any amount they wanted into retirement plans and avoid paying taxes on that income and on its growth. They could deduct all types of interest expense. They could grow their assets without paying taxes in insurance policies. Yeesh. Actually sheltering all that income probably constrained consumption on their part.

[trotsky]

10. Well now I've gotten the FreeRepublic answer to high marginal tax rates of the past.

Thanks!

[dkf]

11. Its the truth.

Ronald Reagan brought down tax rates but tax receipts didn't fall that drasticallly.

"The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes "reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989," a 1% reduction."

"With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

[trotsky]

12. Yeah, I'll stick with Paul Krugman and his view on Reaganomics, thanks.

I will not deny you your preferred sources.

[dkf]

13. Its wikipedia.

All I'm saying is it is a fallacy to think that the rich really paid 90% of their income in taxes. The rich always find ways to not pay taxes.

If we raised taxes past a certain point, tax free municipal bonds would be all the rage.

[trotsky]

24. It sure is Wikipedia.

And that's all that needs to be said.

[fascisthunter]

25. good bye

[Yavin4]

16. The Defense Budget is $700 Billion A Year

Why? What nation is preparing to invade and occupy us? That budget should be $200 Billion at the most. There's $500 billion right there.

Raise the top tax rate by 2%, and voila, the budget gap will close.

How do I know this would work? Clinton did it in the 90s, and we got surpluses.

Any questions?

[spooked911]

20. indeed, the solution is not hard except some politician has to be brave enough

to stand up to the powerful elites.

[ladjf]

18. Not a bad idea. nt

[GTurck]

14. You have accepted...

a deep deep lie. Social Security and Medicare are paid for from payroll taxes (FICA) from the day you receive your first paycheck. Those taxes do NOT go into the general fund and are NOT part of the deficit. Your parents are not only "entitled" to that money but it would be illegal to keep it from them. Raising the income cap is really all that is needed to have the programs remain solvent.
Medicare costs are rising because of the run-away profits of the medical establishment not from lack of efficiency.
Until all liberals/progressives recognize and reject such lies we will remain where we are - Nowhere.

[dkf]

15. They count in two ways...the money we owe them are part of the deficit.

And eventually they will need to pay out more than they take in and the general fund will have paid off the "surplus". That is when they will either be cut or they will be paid out of the general fund as a part of the budget and will directly contribute towards the deficit.

[GTurck]

26. Fascinating...

Where did you get your information on this subject? Mine came from Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz comments and articles.

[spooked911]

19. I say end the wars and cut defense spending first.

Raise taxes on the rich second.

Talk about someone who doesn't get it.

[reformist2]

6. These people are Social Darwinists. They want to go back to the '80s - the 1880s.

[xchrom]

17. ...

:applause:

[Blue_Tires]

21. excellent insights....

bookmarked for later...

[roman7]

22. hold tight to democratic base

despite our different views we must stick together to fight off this attact on humanity from the extremist republican party . personally i dont even think they are the rep. party anymore their tactics are approaching nazi- fascist final solution .