![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
May. 4th, 2012
Stephen King on Taxes
May. 4th, 2012 09:00 amStephen King comes out in favor of higher taxes for the rich.
_ _ _
I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.
[...]
It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
-- Stephen King
_ _ _
The Christie line about cutting a check is the plutocratic response to arguments made by those rich people, such as King and Warren Buffett, who argue for a more progressive tax. It's darkly funny: our rich folks have never controlled so much wealth as they do now, but they only grow more mean-spirited. It does not bode well for the future.
_ _ _
I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.
[...]
It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
-- Stephen King
_ _ _
The Christie line about cutting a check is the plutocratic response to arguments made by those rich people, such as King and Warren Buffett, who argue for a more progressive tax. It's darkly funny: our rich folks have never controlled so much wealth as they do now, but they only grow more mean-spirited. It does not bode well for the future.
Stephen King on Taxes
May. 4th, 2012 09:00 amStephen King comes out in favor of higher taxes for the rich.
_ _ _
I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.
[...]
It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
-- Stephen King
_ _ _
The Christie line about cutting a check is the plutocratic response to arguments made by those rich people, such as King and Warren Buffett, who argue for a more progressive tax. It's darkly funny: our rich folks have never controlled so much wealth as they do now, but they only grow more mean-spirited. It does not bode well for the future.
_ _ _
I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.
[...]
It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
-- Stephen King
_ _ _
The Christie line about cutting a check is the plutocratic response to arguments made by those rich people, such as King and Warren Buffett, who argue for a more progressive tax. It's darkly funny: our rich folks have never controlled so much wealth as they do now, but they only grow more mean-spirited. It does not bode well for the future.
I think we got another one of those three-minute semi-showers in the small hours of the night. More mockery than rain. I might have even just dreamed it.
Another year of brutalizing drought. I swear the earth becomes more uninhabitable every year.
Another year of brutalizing drought. I swear the earth becomes more uninhabitable every year.
I think we got another one of those three-minute semi-showers in the small hours of the night. More mockery than rain. I might have even just dreamed it.
Another year of brutalizing drought. I swear the earth becomes more uninhabitable every year.
Another year of brutalizing drought. I swear the earth becomes more uninhabitable every year.
Atlas (1,1) James Taggart
May. 4th, 2012 06:00 pmEddie Willers has arrived, and Ayn Rand treats us to a strong, vivid description of the head of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.
_ _ _
James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His body had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.
He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.
“Don’t bother me, don’t bother me, don’t bother me,” said James Taggart.
Eddie Willers walked toward the desk.
-- “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
_ _ _
You can tell, right? that James Taggart is not Ayn Rand’s ideal for a man of business. The great Taggart family, like the United States, and not coincidentally, has fallen into decline. Of course, there is Dagny Taggart, the sister of James, but she is younger, and perhaps too female, and although she is the heroine of our story, she did not get to be the head of the Taggart business.
_ _ _
James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His body had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.
He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.
“Don’t bother me, don’t bother me, don’t bother me,” said James Taggart.
Eddie Willers walked toward the desk.
-- “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
_ _ _
You can tell, right? that James Taggart is not Ayn Rand’s ideal for a man of business. The great Taggart family, like the United States, and not coincidentally, has fallen into decline. Of course, there is Dagny Taggart, the sister of James, but she is younger, and perhaps too female, and although she is the heroine of our story, she did not get to be the head of the Taggart business.
Atlas (1,1) James Taggart
May. 4th, 2012 06:00 pmEddie Willers has arrived, and Ayn Rand treats us to a strong, vivid description of the head of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.
_ _ _
James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His body had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.
He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.
“Don’t bother me, don’t bother me, don’t bother me,” said James Taggart.
Eddie Willers walked toward the desk.
-- “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
_ _ _
You can tell, right? that James Taggart is not Ayn Rand’s ideal for a man of business. The great Taggart family, like the United States, and not coincidentally, has fallen into decline. Of course, there is Dagny Taggart, the sister of James, but she is younger, and perhaps too female, and although she is the heroine of our story, she did not get to be the head of the Taggart business.
_ _ _
James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His body had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.
He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.
“Don’t bother me, don’t bother me, don’t bother me,” said James Taggart.
Eddie Willers walked toward the desk.
-- “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
_ _ _
You can tell, right? that James Taggart is not Ayn Rand’s ideal for a man of business. The great Taggart family, like the United States, and not coincidentally, has fallen into decline. Of course, there is Dagny Taggart, the sister of James, but she is younger, and perhaps too female, and although she is the heroine of our story, she did not get to be the head of the Taggart business.
The Grand Old Plutocracy
May. 4th, 2012 09:00 pmPaul Krugman writes on the issue of our political polarization, taking the argument that we also saw this during the Great Depression. During such severe economic slumps, income inequality becomes more stark, and when wealth is thus more tightly concentrated among the top few percent, our politics becomes hyper-polarized in turn. In short, we get a political party that becomes effectively co-opted by the billionaires, and so the Republicans do everything possible to advance the interests of the rich elite, and the remaining 95% of the population be damned.
_ _ _
As it happens, these doctrines have overwhelmingly failed in practice. For example, conservative goldbugs have been predicting vast inflation and soaring interest rates for three years, and have been wrong every step of the way. But this failure has done nothing to dent their influence on a party that, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein note, is “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”
And why is the G.O.P. so devoted to these doctrines regardless of facts and evidence? It surely has a lot to do with the fact that billionaires have always loved the doctrines in question, which offer a rationale for policies that serve their interests. Indeed, support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business. And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.
Which brings us to the question of what it will take to end this depression we’re in.
Many pundits assert that the U.S. economy has big structural problems that will prevent any quick recovery. All the evidence, however, points to a simple lack of demand, which could and should be cured very quickly through a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus.
No, the real structural problem is in our political system, which has been warped and paralyzed by the power of a small, wealthy minority. And the key to economic recovery lies in finding a way to get past that minority’s malign influence.
-- Paul Krugman at The New York Times
_ _ _
As it happens, these doctrines have overwhelmingly failed in practice. For example, conservative goldbugs have been predicting vast inflation and soaring interest rates for three years, and have been wrong every step of the way. But this failure has done nothing to dent their influence on a party that, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein note, is “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”
And why is the G.O.P. so devoted to these doctrines regardless of facts and evidence? It surely has a lot to do with the fact that billionaires have always loved the doctrines in question, which offer a rationale for policies that serve their interests. Indeed, support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business. And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.
Which brings us to the question of what it will take to end this depression we’re in.
Many pundits assert that the U.S. economy has big structural problems that will prevent any quick recovery. All the evidence, however, points to a simple lack of demand, which could and should be cured very quickly through a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus.
No, the real structural problem is in our political system, which has been warped and paralyzed by the power of a small, wealthy minority. And the key to economic recovery lies in finding a way to get past that minority’s malign influence.
-- Paul Krugman at The New York Times
The Grand Old Plutocracy
May. 4th, 2012 09:00 pmPaul Krugman writes on the issue of our political polarization, taking the argument that we also saw this during the Great Depression. During such severe economic slumps, income inequality becomes more stark, and when wealth is thus more tightly concentrated among the top few percent, our politics becomes hyper-polarized in turn. In short, we get a political party that becomes effectively co-opted by the billionaires, and so the Republicans do everything possible to advance the interests of the rich elite, and the remaining 95% of the population be damned.
_ _ _
As it happens, these doctrines have overwhelmingly failed in practice. For example, conservative goldbugs have been predicting vast inflation and soaring interest rates for three years, and have been wrong every step of the way. But this failure has done nothing to dent their influence on a party that, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein note, is “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”
And why is the G.O.P. so devoted to these doctrines regardless of facts and evidence? It surely has a lot to do with the fact that billionaires have always loved the doctrines in question, which offer a rationale for policies that serve their interests. Indeed, support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business. And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.
Which brings us to the question of what it will take to end this depression we’re in.
Many pundits assert that the U.S. economy has big structural problems that will prevent any quick recovery. All the evidence, however, points to a simple lack of demand, which could and should be cured very quickly through a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus.
No, the real structural problem is in our political system, which has been warped and paralyzed by the power of a small, wealthy minority. And the key to economic recovery lies in finding a way to get past that minority’s malign influence.
-- Paul Krugman at The New York Times
_ _ _
As it happens, these doctrines have overwhelmingly failed in practice. For example, conservative goldbugs have been predicting vast inflation and soaring interest rates for three years, and have been wrong every step of the way. But this failure has done nothing to dent their influence on a party that, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein note, is “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”
And why is the G.O.P. so devoted to these doctrines regardless of facts and evidence? It surely has a lot to do with the fact that billionaires have always loved the doctrines in question, which offer a rationale for policies that serve their interests. Indeed, support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business. And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.
Which brings us to the question of what it will take to end this depression we’re in.
Many pundits assert that the U.S. economy has big structural problems that will prevent any quick recovery. All the evidence, however, points to a simple lack of demand, which could and should be cured very quickly through a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus.
No, the real structural problem is in our political system, which has been warped and paralyzed by the power of a small, wealthy minority. And the key to economic recovery lies in finding a way to get past that minority’s malign influence.
-- Paul Krugman at The New York Times