Pajamas Media

63 Comments

1. Jeff Minick:

“Maybe” and “perhaps” are the keywords to your thesis. Moreover, your next to last paragraph contradicts the rest of your argument.
Looking on the bright side is important to me as well, but to look at all we must keep our eyes open to what is happening to our country.

Mar 12, 2009 - 2:20 am 2. TomF:

The sky isn’t falling, because, despite what happens in the higher levels, life goes on. I have learned this living in Russia & Ukraine, where every election can have radical affects on everyday life. But life goes on. Why? Because people have much more control on their own personal life than Obama or any other leader.

I have seen many people immigrate to America. The fact is that those who lived fine in the former Soviet Union, build a fine life in the US. Those who didn’t live good, often get into difficulties in the US. Either way, their standard of living has improved, but to what degree depends mostly on the person. Their will and desire to work hard and think hard was the determining factor. It’s no different for all us born and breed Americans. Of course there are exceptions to this, but you don’t build your life on exceptions. Forward to personal responsibility. That is the conservative way, that is the American way.

Mar 12, 2009 - 2:42 am 3. moron:

“capitalism isn’t going anywhere; it’s just going to operate in a way that properly redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the working class.”

Now I have heard all the spin possible.

Mar 12, 2009 - 3:19 am 4. WaltW:

What is lacking in the entire tax debate is an examination of the tax code itself. I don’t beleive that anyone is against paying their fair share of taxes.

Underlying the opposition to the tax increases is a strong and very justifiable suspicion that the very wealthy will still be able to afford the experts who specialize in the dodges that exist in the labryinth of our tax codes. Assuage that, and most will still grumble that it may be too high, but everyone is still in the same boat, rather than a rowboat for some and a 200 ft yacht for the others.

Mar 12, 2009 - 3:34 am 5. vb:

The danger in these policies is that people become passive about their own lives. In the late sixties, I worked for a big city welfare department. One day an older coworker came back from his house visits and told me he had done something awful. In preparing for a visit, he noticed that it was exactly 25 years since the woman had been on welfare (she was a child of 5 when her mother first applied). When he arrived at her house, he congratulated her on her anniversary. He was a fine man and would never have intentionally embbarassed anyone; this was just something that popped out.

Several weeks later he came to me and asked if I remembered the incident. He had gotten a call from the woman. She had a job. She told him that his comment made her realize she had never thought about her life and what she wanted.

Whatever new prgrams are implemented, I would like to see some debate on how these programs will prevent people from losing control of their own lives. Help is one thing; creating dependency is something else.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:25 am 6. shanghaicharlie:

This article sounds a little suspect. I’ve read that our government’s budget is approaching 39%, not 22% of GNP. No one without white skin could become a naturalized citizen until 1952? Where is the documentation? I’ve never heard anything like this before.

Also, changing demographics and culture have affected our financial health and I see no end in sight. It is pretty-well established that racial politics played the decisive role in the subprime mess. There was an effort from “community organizers” at the bottom and at the highest levels of our government to close the “housing gap” between whites and minorities beginning around 1994. All done with the best of intentions to be sure but look at the results. The very possibility that I could and probably will be called a racist for repeating these “hate facts” only confirms the level of fear that led to such bizarre behavior in the first place. And yes there was greed from the bankers, mortgage lenders, ratings agencies, etc. But why were responsible people unable to stop it? Because when states like Georgia and North Carolina tried to pass laws forcing bankers and lenders to be held accountable for bad loans Washington (in the form of Freddie and Fannie) and race hustlers threatened them with lawsuits and cutting off the purchase of ANY loans.

In earlier times, the dominant culture was far more self-reliant than the current one. There was far less crime, divorce, drugs, remedial this and that. These problems translate into mega-buck government spending that Obama is more than happy to accommodate and even encourage. We are entering the Age of Dependency. And don’t forget the relentless anti-traditionalist propaganda being fed to children and young adults in the federally subsidized school system, now slated to receive DOUBLE taxpayer funding. How will the creation of an endless stream of “victims” hell-bent on their rights and goaded by envy ever produce anything but stagflation, punishment of the innovators and dull, sulking anger.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:31 am 7. Dougf:

The argument that the ‘rich’ in effect should be rich because they produce unintended wealth for all would have a lot more force were it not for the past 20-30 years.

Much(maybe all) of the wealth seemingly created has proven to be of the entirely fictitious variety. It has now evaporated with the crash of the housing/stock/debt bubbles. If the current system was better at creating REAL assets and not PAPER assets, we would ALL be better off. That is why Obama can do pretty much whatever he wants to do at this point in time. Not really because he is invulnerable, but because the old order that created this debacle is seen as dysfunctional and corrupt.

Maybe because it is. If you want to stop Obama then it is not sufficient to hold up a mythological glorious past. What is required is an alternative vision in which the criminals don’t have control of the jails and the inmates control of the asylums. No-one should be defending the actions of anyone over the past decades of irresponsible economic activity. We cannot live on debt and greed alone. That system needs replacing. Not only because it is manifestly unjust but because it DOES NOT WORK.

And it needs replacing —– NOW. Don’t like what Obama is proposing. Propose something else that is NOT the status quo.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:35 am 8. vivo:

2. TomF:

“The sky isn’t falling, because, despite what happens in the higher levels, life goes on.”

You put it very well.

I’ve been quoting Chicken Little on this site for a while.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:39 am 9. Craig:

“…says capitalism isn’t going anywhere; it’s just going to operate in a way that properly redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the working class.”

WTF? (Apparently, I share Glenn Beck’s affliction: blood is shooting out of my eyes.)

There’s no way to ‘properly redistribute wealth’. EVER.

Mar 12, 2009 - 5:04 am 10. Tolbert:

Those who think that only the “rich” are going to be soaked are in for a rude surprise.

There aren’t enough of the people who make $250,000 a year to pay for all of the programs that are dancing feverishly though the Democrats minds.

Soon the definition of “Rich” will be defined downward to encompass almost all of the populace earning more than the average.

I have heard several Democratic congress members now refering to the rich as individuals who earn more the $75,000 per year.

Yes, folks the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

Mar 12, 2009 - 5:36 am 11. Ols Soldier:

It’s rare that I read an article and disagree with every point made but you have done it. Only an arrogant, condescending liberal lawyer could have written such nonsense as a serious article. It’s completely free of any supporting facts or research – just feel good while your betters decide what is best for you.

Hey universal health care sucks everywhere it’s been tried but we’ll do better just because. And cap-and-trade is based on junk science and will be the final coffin nail for U.S. manufacturing, but don’t worry. And if people have to pay a little (lot) more in taxes, so what? It worked so well in the 30’s.

Thanks, I really feel better now.

Mar 12, 2009 - 5:47 am 12. Meryl:

3.Moron and 9.Craig. yes.

This has gone beyond spin.

10. Tolbert…and when they have destroyed the economy to where no one is making more than $25K a year, then anyone making more than $17.5K will be considered rich. In the land of the blind, the one-eye man is king.

Destructive, ignorant, arrogant, unproductive, unkind, cruel, ungrateful, vicious people is what they are, both individually and as a group.

Eventually, I may find a way to adequately express what they are.

This is crazymaking.

Mar 12, 2009 - 5:51 am 13. rocketeer:

Any time anyone uses the phrase “proper way to redistribute wealth”, it’s time to get out the guns. There is no way to properly redistribute the wealth. My money is my money, and if you want to come take it, you have to use force to do it. Forcing a punitive tax code on me will make me 1: hide my wealth, 2: move my wealth somewhere that you can’t get to it, and 3: not produce any more wealth that you can get your hands on.

Forgetting all of the numbers, we have to understand basic human psychology. Large, intrusive government encourages apathy, lack of innovation, dishonesty, and frustration. Every government on the planet, since the dawn of civilization that has gone down this road has failed. Every one.

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:05 am 14. RedHeadedTexan:

Mr. Farrow…I bet you voted for The One. Redistribute wealth? Give what the hardworking earned to those who won’t work? I worked like a dog for what I have, and I will fight to the death to keep it. Come and take it. Do your best.

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:15 am 15. AThinkingPerson:

I do find it funny (and telling) that those who are calling for wealth redistribution are never the people who create it. The old Democratic trait of entitlement rears it’s ugly head again.

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:17 am 16. MarkD:

I guess the author thinks there is some pile of wealth and a few greedy people took more than their share, which is unfair to everyone else, so the government is going to redistribute it fairly. When you start with the incorrect assumption that wealth is static, you will reach incorrect conclusions.

I’d suggest the author read a basic economic textbook before opining about economics again. I don’t mind the display of ignorance. I object to the waste of my time.

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:22 am 17. Steve:

For any of these ‘maybes’ to be true, hundreds of years of human experience would need to be ignored.

A similar ‘maybe’ essay could have been written in 1998 about what a great ‘maybe’ idea it would be to give loans to people who could not afford them. Where did that get us?

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:34 am 18. T.K. Farrow:

Jeff (1), you were on the right track. The last two paragraphs were supposed to contradict the devil’s advocate thesis of everything turning out okay! A budget that fundamentally undermines capitalism to correct the crash of the housing market is an overreaction to the problem – and therefore bad.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:02 am 19. John Galt:

This article and its premise is dumb.

It wasn’t capitalism that caused the hosusing bubble.

It was the manipulation of the Fed lowering interest rates to artificically low rates and the easy lending policy of two quasi-government institutions, Freddie and Fannie.

A dumb article.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:10 am 20. uburoisc:

Bah, I take issue with almost every line in this condecending and asinine series of proposals. If we raise taxes on “the wealthy” we will get:

“…if the result is pre-school for those who would otherwise be sitting in front of a television in the living room of the neighborhood in-home daycare provider.”

Naturally, universal preschool (read more state control of education and more teacher unions) is superior to local daycare. Local daycare is a joke (just like home-schools, I suspect), but state accredited preschool is wonderful, so wonderful that people with money should pay for the kids that single mothers had, but cannot afford. Only through preschool will we find a way to save the kids from TV.

and “If the potential high school dropout stays in school because the government has college covered, then how can anyone argue against that?”

Yes, easily. I know a great deal about college, and it is a lie that people cannot go to college because they cannot afford it; they cannot go to college because they are lazy and want someone to pay for it so they do not have to borrow money. Let me repeat that: there is plenty of money to attend school, but you will have to pay it back when you finish, presumably in a higher paying job; that is the deal. But the nasty little secret is that millions of students graduate from college each year with useless and pointless degrees in subjects that enable them to make and accomplish nothing, and these idiots then demand more money from the government to have something to do. Meanwhile, real students, from impoverished countries, who know how to focus, enroll in the subjects that will lead to real jobs doing useful work with solid pay. The universities are filled with listless, indolent, losers who were usered into college because advisors like Mr. Farrow doesn’t have the imagination to think of anything else to tell them to do. When you make something appear free (and it’s not, the university scam is the biggest financial racket in the country, and the costs are indefensible) it has exactly that value: nothing.

No, I do not want the drop-out hanging around and then wasting our time and money in school; the biggest problem with college is the 50% of the students who are not college material, and never will be, filling up the classrooms, wasting time and money, and dumbing down the entire curriculum. Instead, go work in the world and work, learn to work for long hours and hold a couple of jobs to make ends meet, pay your own way in the world and learn what things cost for a few years. Learn to cook and sew and do laundry and pay your bills and unserstand how precious your time and money are.

“A happier working class may just make everyone happier, including those paying extra taxes — at least that’s how the argument seems to go. And maybe it’ll work”

Ah, the paternal Mr. Farrow looking out for the happiness of the working class (as a lifelong memeber of this class, I never wanted anything to do with leftist do-gooders who claimed to be looking out for my best interests by giving me free stuff from the work of other people, I just wanted them to take their hands out of my damn pocket, and stop taxing my overtime pay). But what you’re going to get is more layoffs of the working class (why suffer, just cut payroll) and more government employees taking a big, fat cut off the whole transaction (a class of employees you can never get rid of and who will end up costing every paygrade far more that they could ever accomplish). You will end up with unending expectations and unrealizable goals and a large black market, and an abusive and overbearing governemtnt always looking to squeeze “the wealthy” so they can pay the demands of both the government workers and the “middle class”. Good thing you’re there to oversee this mess.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:11 am 21. John Galt:

What in fact is “intellectual honesty”

It is giving consideration to dumb, wrong and outlandish ideas no matter how stupid they be.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:12 am 22. Jeff Perren:

“If the potential high school dropout stays in school because the government has college covered, then how can anyone argue against that?”

As with everything else suggested in the article, the reason the author errs is his bad basic premises. Good and bad policy are not properly decided on the basis of ’social utility’. Individuals have rights which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. The present Administration (and increasingly those of the past 100 years) are violating those rights.

One important corollary of those rights is that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. To remove from one person by coercion to give to another as a form of social engineering violates the rights of both victim and recipient. It is wrong to violate rights.

As a practical matter, as one commenter eloquently stated, one would have to ignore centuries of history to believe that this will work out well.

The devil’s advocate is himself Mephistopheles.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:27 am 23. Old Soldier:

“the government has college covered”

Just what we need – more unemployed college grads walking around with no skills. Some people should just learn a trade – these days I wish I had a plumber’s license.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:48 am 24. donttreadonme:

Lawyer and writer, eh? hmmmm…

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:50 am 25. AnninCA:

I can’t see how the Republicans will be able to regroup with the hysterical reaction. It makes it appear, at least to me, that there is a huge difference between the parties and that the same old policies would be reintroduced.

We’ll see what emerges as solutions from the Republican side. If ever there were evidence, the crash and layoffs should remind people that it truly is quite easy to lose all healthcare benefits in a blink. People may be choosing between paying COBRA or the mortgage.

These are real issues with the current system that demand real solutions.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:52 am 26. Mike T:

The fact that civil servants in most areas of the country preside over ridiculously slow departments of motor vehicles, for instance, doesn’t speak at all to how well state-run medical centers will operate (assuming we ever migrated from a public/private system to a single payer one.)

Is it ignorance on your part, or deliberate oversight, that you didn’t mention the Department of Veteran Affairs?…

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:58 am 27. Terry Gain:

Your case is dismissed, know-nothing liberal lawyer. You are Exhibit A as to why the Obama recession will last throughout his presidency. A member of the elite who has no understanding of psychology or economics.

The wealth of America was not created by the government.

As for a single payer universal health care system be prepared to learn a new word – queue (pronounced cue).

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:01 am 28. kasper:

Galt is correct — this IS a dumb article.

However, I would invite Farrow to be Obama’s test case, along with the rest of his cocktail sippers. Get back to us in 8 years. The only way one come out on top is if he’s part of the massive corrupt thuggery that will ensue. Don’t think that’s not part of the plan with ‘the 0′ and his minions.

Leave the rest of us to find our own way without the government’s Marxist “help.”

Even with the coming Obama “”brave new world of limitations, most of us will work around some of the obstacles and manage. But, when government purposely puts up road blocks to liberty and innovation, the result is time and resources wasted and a world of possibilities lost to our children.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:11 am 29. T.K. Farrow:

It looks like Dougf is the only one who made it to the end of the article and read the whole thing as intended.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:11 am 30. Grzmlyk:

“The fact that civil servants in most areas of the country preside over ridiculously slow departments of motor vehicles, for instance, doesn’t speak at all to how well state-run medical centers will operate.”

Really? Why not? Bureaucracy is bureaucacy. Rationing and long waits are as inevitable as the law of gravity.

Has this twit looked at every other country that’s tried universal health care? Americans are ingenious, but bureaucracy’s raison detre is to squelch individual creativity.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:32 am 31. DrummingAncient:

T.K.:
I read the whole article, and was amazed at how vapid the majority of the comments are. Yes, they may may have been factually correct, but the last two paragraphs give away your point: that to play the Devil’s advocate is not to ignore who the client is. Clearly, there have been abuses by some who take too much money from shareholders even as the institutions they head are going under. That does not excuse (to borrow another phrase) throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because somebody (Madoff, et al) abuses a system whereby wealth is created it doesn’t indict the whole system.

Good article. Made me think, not just react.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:35 am 32. Ms. Attitude:

5. vb: “Whatever new prgrams are implemented, I would like to see some debate on how these programs will prevent people from losing control of their own lives. Help is one thing; creating dependency is something else.”

I agree…well put. Evidently Community Organizing isn’t working. All it does is create victims. People need to feel impowered.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:41 am 33. mishu:

How is it intended? Giving away “free” stuff has been tried before and it hasn’t worked. To say the left and Obama are trying new ideas is a joke. I guess it is to all those young whipper snappers who grew up with Power Rangers it might be but the damn schools failed to teach history. Instead of teaching the history of the United States, they teach the history of grievance groups in the United States.

Now get off my lawn!

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:43 am 34. beth:

I’m still waiting for the punch line.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:46 am 35. kasper:

OK. We’re just talking about the “little old budget?”

Actually it’s nothing compared to the great “stimulus” package passed weeks ago. And hey, apparently there’s another in the works, too. Hooray!

The housing bubble is going to be repeated over and over again as long as we don’t allow failure. Or, maybe not. The burden of one household paying the mortgage for several others is not sustainable. I guess over time we’ll all be living in government housing in one form or another.

Farrow is looking at Obama’s economic plans singly. Breaking it down, I suppose thats more palatable. But, most everything in the stimulus proposes to impose restrictions, grow government and increase dependency. Once such encroachment is allowed, it doesn’t going away.

The bigger economic picture is utterly deadly to the free market. The sky is falling, but just in little pieces and that is the insidious aspect of what may be coming.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:53 am 36. Kirly:

” properly redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the working class”

there is NO SUCH thing as a PROPER redistribution of wealth.

your article is bunk.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:07 am 37. Michael:

I think it is time to change the verbage. What the democrats are talking about is handing out charity. All these people who want money from government want charity. Charity is a wonderful thing for those who aren’t competent at some point in their life to care for themselves.

The bad thing is that government is awful at distributing charity. It is inefficient and incompetent in getting it to those who truly need it at the time they need it. People receiving charity should be greatful that they are given it when they need it and be desperate to get out of the need to have it.

By sofening the word charity to “entitlements” the people involved have been victimized. Those receiving it by thinking it is owed them and they don’t need to feel beholding to those that give it and those who are mugged to give the charity all too aften to those who have no need and cetainly don’t deserve it.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:07 am 38. Tolbert:

T.K. Farrow,

There are writing classes you can take to improve your skills, some even online.

Just saying.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:10 am 39. TrogloPundit:

There seems to be a serious sarcasm-recognition deficiency in this comment section.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:23 am 40. Ms. Attitude:

Maybe the new motto of the Republican party should be, “You can do it, stop being a victim.”

T.K. Farrow: I read the entire article and found it amusing. You got the democrat arguments down and was able to show how stupid they are.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:32 am 41. Paul of Alexandria:

1,3,11,et al. “It’s rare that I read an article and disagree with every point made but you have done it.”

Go look up the definition of “Devil’s Advocate”. You simply make Farrow’s point.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:38 am 42. Kirly:

#35 Kasper said “The burden of one household paying the mortgage for several others is not sustainable”

it’s a giant ponzi scheme just like (so-called) social security.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:50 am 43. Steve P.:

TrogloPundit says: “There seems to be a serious sarcasm-recognition deficiency in this comment section.”

It’s not just in this section, it’s all over this whole site. The wingnuts here don’t quite possess the level of the critical thinking necessary to differentiate the literal from the figurative.

Mar 12, 2009 - 10:02 am 44. fred:

If tax considerations distort the investment and expansion decisions of corporations and individuals, it is difficult to see how this would benefit our economy. Raising the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% might seem small to some people, But I can assure you it is not. Same with corporate tax rates. One significant factor that drives companies to outsource offshore is the fact that our corporate rates are a lot higher than that of most other countries, including Russia and China.

Let us not forget that small, entrepreneurial businesses are the growth engine of our economy. Sure, a lot of them fail, but we stack the odds against them by adding to their costs. Fortune 500 companies have been net job destroyers over the years, and not just because of outsourcing offshore. When companies get very large very often they are in mature markets, models, and products and profits are squeezed by competition. One of the ways they try to maintain profitability is by cutting labor costs. If you stack the deck to give small businesses, the engines of job growth, any advantage they can gain, you immensely help the overall economy going forward.

Obama and his supporters do not seem to notice this. No wonder he didn’t know what a P/E ratio is. He’s never really studied economics and finance. It’s all unfamiliar territory to people who have largely never run a business and met a payroll.

Mar 12, 2009 - 10:15 am 45. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Dude. One of these days, the Chinese are going to stop buying our junk paper. Then we’re going to be in deep, deep dogobama. And it’s going to happen rather precipitously.

Then they’ll laugh their pelosis off watching us strangled by our own cap-and-trade suicide pact with no real money to buy carbon credits.

Mar 12, 2009 - 10:34 am 46. ked5:

No one without white skin could become a naturalized citizen until 1952? Where is the documentation?

~~~~~~~~~~~

I can tell you where to go to find out what a crock that is. Old Census records where they have “year naturalized” on them, as well as “race” and “country of birth”.

Mar 12, 2009 - 11:39 am 47. Paddy:

“The U.S. budget currently stands at 20 percent of the gross domestic product; the Obama budget would raise that to 22 percent.”

The budget for 2008 was only 10% of GNP. Then all of the liberal chickens came home to roost as a direct consequence of the Dems malfeasance regarding Fannie/Freddie, forcing sub-prime loans, etc.

Reality seems to be beyond the grasp of liberals.

Mar 12, 2009 - 11:42 am 48. ked5:

Playing devil’s advocate, to see something from another perspective, isn’t always a good thing. Sometimes, it will simply feed the “oh I’m so objective” into the delusion of accepting what is a total crock. Put down the kool-aide.

Mar 12, 2009 - 11:42 am 49. Marc Malone:

Good Lord, people. Read the whole article. Think about it. Then read ALL the posts before YOU post in a knee-jerk fashion.

The writer is putting forth the best possible argument in favor of Obama’s policies, and the arguments fall flat. That’s the whole point. Sheesh.

Mar 12, 2009 - 12:51 pm 50. Steve P.:

ked5 says: “Playing devil’s advocate, to see something from another perspective, isn’t always a good thing. Sometimes, it will simply feed the “oh I’m so objective” into the delusion of accepting what is a total crock. Put down the kool-aide.”

Translation: “Let’s not even try to understand the opposition, how they think, what their motivations are and why they are so popular right now. Let’s just keep calling them socialists and convincing ourselves that their beliefs are the result of some psychological deficiency. That way, we can look forward to losing even worse in 2012 than we did in 2008!”

Mar 12, 2009 - 12:51 pm 51. xqqme:

a slight raise in taxes?
anyone seen the reports from Michigan with the ’sin’ tax? Seems it did raise revenue like it was supposed to!
uburoisc (20) that was the best rant EVER! There’s plenty of money in grants and scholarships. You have to WORK at it. It becomes a job to write all the compositions and fill out all those applications. But they do add up $100 at a time.

Mar 12, 2009 - 1:12 pm 52. gnickgnack:

Hey T.K, you “cocktail sipping” “twit” GREAT JOB! You certainly went to the head of Tolbert’s (38) class to have fooled so many readers. You so fully “psyched” Terry (27), et.al., that they felt the need to expand on your unstated premise and add further details to the point you were making all along. TrogloPundit was spot on!

Mar 12, 2009 - 1:16 pm 53. LawhawkSF:

I gather your BA and JD came from an ivy league school. Otherwise, how to explain your outrageous misstatements of law and history? Those of us who graduated from mere public institutions (UC Berkeley)were unaware that only Europeans could become naturalized citizens until 1952. I’d write more, but I have to call my Mexican and Japanese friends and tell them their parents are here illegally. Ignore that certificate from the federal government dated prior to 1952.

Mar 12, 2009 - 1:26 pm 54. deguello:

Very nice Mr. Farrow,you are ready to join the Oxford debating union,now please take an anti hallucigenic,and come back to us.

Mar 12, 2009 - 3:08 pm 55. malclave:

“[I]f the result is pre-school for those who would otherwise be sitting in front of a television”

Why is pre-school a responsibility of the federal government?

“If the potential high school dropout stays in school”

Why is retention of high school students a responsibility of the federal government?

“Maybe the fear that universal health care will lower the quality of care in the U.S. is paranoid and unfounded.”

Maybe it isn’t.

“Maybe it’s also an unfounded fear that a cap-and-trade system for pollutants will raise the cost of energy for all Americans”

“Obama himself is conscious of that fact and will not choose to implement plans in a European way, if only because serious resistance is assured.”

Maybe that “serious resistance” is manifesting, because your assumptions about Obama are incorrect?
Maybe it isn’t.

Mar 12, 2009 - 3:40 pm 56. A Clay:

How about some devil’s advocacy from someone who is numerate? This argumnent can be summed up as look at all the great things government can do with the money from the upper middle class, and if these programs don’t work, we won’t ever get a dismissive “my bad.”

No thought had gone into the ramifications of the changes wrought or the degree of impact.

Kudos to Pajamas Media for delivering ignorance wrapped in smugness to our doorstep, saving us the trip to the Huffington Post.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:18 pm 57. Fan of Coop:

T.K.

Coop called, that’s his artwork that you’ve appropriated. Guess you didn’t specialize in copyright at law school.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:47 pm 58. Mike Blackadder:

Re: gnickgnack, etc -

Sorry, but the last two paragraphs of Farrow’s article presents about the weakest possible rebuttal to the rest. Moreover, he failed to point out in his reflections that most of his “devil’s advocate” argument is factually incorrect and doesn’t seem to redeem himself in having any understanding of what caused the financial crisis and how to fix it.

I think the reaction is highly appropriate. I especially like #19. That pretty much sums it up.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:52 pm 59. Anna Bearss:

And MAYBE Obama will govern from the middle.

Mar 12, 2009 - 6:32 pm 60. fred:

I have seen macroeconomic forecast models which estimate that cap and trade will shave off anywhere from 1% to 3% of GDP once the economy gets going in the future. Those are very significant numbers, because it effectively negates any positive effects from “stimulus spending.”

What you will get, starting in 2010 will be 1% to 2% GDP growth combined with the emergence of inflationary pressures due to the the huge size of the monetary aggregates. By 2012 we could have inflation up around 6% and climbing with unemployment still well above 7% and maybe close to 8%.

The Democrats probably will barely hold majorities in both houses after the 2010 elections. By 2012 Obama will be defeated and his party will have lost their majorities. However, I doubt that the Republicans would get anything near a fillibuster proof Senate. That means unraveling Obama’s and the Jackasses’ programs, spending, and overall damage will be slow. And we may not get rid of it all.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:22 pm 61. T.K. Farrow:

Naturalization Act of 1790 enabled “free white persons” to become citizens, as did the Naturalization Act of 1795. Racial restrictions were removed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The exception was the naturalization of former slaves in 1870. Lastly “white” did not have to be European; it mostly had to be non-Asian.

UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Ronald Takaki has written extensively on racial restrictions in immigration and naturalization.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:58 pm 62. T.K. Farrow:

Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 were for “free white persons” to become citizens. Racial restrictions were removed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The exception was for freed slaves in 1870. And white didn’t mean European; it mostly meant non-Asian.

UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Ronald Takaki has written extensively on the racial restrictions of U.S. immigration and naturalization.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:31 pm 63. therealist:

So exactly which part of the constitution gives the government the right to tax the citizenry for the purpose of redistributing that wealth to others for the purposes of social engineering? Because my understanding was that We, The People, delegated specific rights to the government and I don’t remember that being one of them.

Mar 14, 2009 - 3:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: