Or, you know, Glen, maybe you’re the one that’s wrong. Maybe nearly half of the country IS in recession because they have yet to see any benefits of the Glorious Republican Tax-cuts that were supposed to make everyone rich, and instead just made a few folks rich.

Maybe we’re in a Depression because so many people who “have yet to see any benefits of the Glorious Republican Tax-cuts that were supposed to make everyone rich, and instead just made a few folks rich” are so depressed. Because you wrote in your diary back in 8th grade that you wished that you would grow up to be rich and famous, and it just isn’t fair that it didn’t pan out for you.

If you give someone $20 so they can buy food, and they give you five back saying, “I can get by on $15, thanks.” At what point is that going to make you rich?

VIN??? How about Hot Water Heater?

Glen - quick, what’s the percent of income made by the poorest 20% of the population? Is the gap between the poorest and richest 20 percent widening or lessening?

If you can’t tell me the answers to those questions without looking up the answers on the internet or any other reference, I’m thinking you may need to sit out the next election, because it is now apparently ok to deny the ‘franchise’ to people who are not up to speed on their economic knowledge.

Isn’t the answer to this question geographic-dependent (or geologically, if we want to include Sarcastro?)

Shouldn’t you get a different answer in Michigan than you would in Nashville? Wouldn’t the answer be different for Dallas/FW than it would for Southern California?

Now, if I were a pollster with an agenda, wouldn’t I weight the people polled heavily from either areas that were doing poorly economically, or doing well, depending on my agenda?

I’d love to see the methodology of this one.

The housing market stalling (with 10% fewer starts than this time last year and half the number of permits being requested), the mortgage industry in crisis due to the implosion of the high-risk markets, the dollar performing at a new low, U.S. securities being snapped up at a record pace by foreign investors because they remain undervalued due to the weak dollar, the Fed sending mixed economic signals as they raise and then lower bank-to-bank rates within the same fiscal quarter, sluggish performance across all manufacturing segments in the U.S., the IMF cuts its global growth forecast based on the expectation of a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy, oil prices beginning to climb higher, the price of metals rising to historic highs while demand and supply remains praetornaturally steady…

Yeah, really nothing there to indicate danger. You’re right.

don_t_ask:

Bingo.

Also, the growth statistics don’t account for inflation. Mean standards of living in are in decline, times are geting harder and harder for more folks all the time. America has been living above its means for a long time and the bill must come due eventually.

don_t_ask and Ror,
regardless of whatever negative number you pull out of your ass, and you can always find negative numbers somewhere, that still doesn’t mean we are in a recession. When the economy stops growing for two straight quarters, then we will be in a recession. I realize that you guys are hoping for a recession, and eventually you will probably get one. But the fact is, we aren’t in one now.

Southern Beale, nobody promised that everyone was going to get rich after the tax cuts. What was promised, was that if taxes were cut, the economy would grow, and there is no disputing the fact that the tax cuts spurred growth. It works every single time it is tried. Yet you people still claim it doesn’t. Your arguments against tax cuts are like arguing against the sky being blue.

Slarti mentioned Michigan. What an excellent example of what you get with modern liberalism. Michigan’s economy is in the tank and what does their governor propose? A freaking tax increase. What a dipstick. Liberals never learn. Send them to school, buy their books, and what do they do but eat the pages.

John, why are you guys so against somebody getting rich? Does it affect you one bit if I become rich? Will it add a single dollar in your pocket, if I don’t become rich? Obviously it truly must be the goal of liberalism to make everybody equal, equally miserable that is.

The rich people that you all love to hate and envy, are the driving force in this economy. They account for the overwhelming majority of all tax receipts, which have increased since the tax cuts. Since the tax cuts, our government has actually taken more money from these people than before. But oh my God, these people had to make more money for our government to take more. We can’t have that, can we? Oh no, thats not fair.

John, I will never apologize for believing that we should limit the franchise. Given the choice between more liberty and more democracy, I’ll take liberty any day.

Oh and one more thing, not only do you guys not know what a recession is, apparently you have never heard of the Consumer Price Index. Inflation has not been a problem since the monetarist/objectivist conservatives started running the Fed. But it is kind of funny to hear liberals complain about inflation. In the past, they being Keynesians, were always in favor of a little inflation.

Yeah, really nothing there to indicate danger. You’re right.

Leading indicators are called that because they are, well, leading indicators. Signs that we may be approaching a recession.

I have no gripe with people saying “times are hard from where I sit.”

I do have a gripe with people saying “we are in a recession.”

Recession is a technical term with a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean that you personally can’t pay your bills.

Southern Beale, nobody promised that everyone was going to get rich after the tax cuts. What was promised, was that if taxes were cut, the economy would grow, and there is no disputing the fact that the tax cuts spurred growth. It works every single time it is tried. Yet you people still claim it doesn’t. Your arguments against tax cuts are like arguing against the sky being blue.

Let me tell you something about the tax cuts.

My husband has a good, well-paying job because of them.

So they didn’t make us “rich”, but they enabled us to be employed because one of those nasty rich people used his extra money from the tax cuts to have a company that hires lots of people.

Wait, Glen, am I reading you right, are you saying there is no inflation?

Or, well, inflation isn’t a problem, anyway? (long morning here, need caffeine)

My wife works for a filthy rich woman. Thank God that she considers herself to be such a princess that she won’t clean her own house or sign for her own FedEx packages. Her decadence has bought a lot of diapers and groceries. Not to mention all of the people employed in the factories that make all the things she buys.

Laffer causes some to hold their hands over their ears and chant: “La,la,la - can’t hear you!”

They count on most people not understanding, or having short memories.

Granted, cutting taxes is not the ONLY way to get the economy to grow (you could have an entirely new sector of the economy spring up from nothing, as happened in the 90’s).

It’s never as bad, or as good as the news makes it seem.

No Ivy, I am not saying there is no inflation. There will always be some inflation, but since Volcker, Greenspan, and now Bernanke, inflation is not the problem it used to be. Btw, inflation is not a fiscal issue, but a monetary one. If you believe it is a problem, then take your gripe to the Fed, not the executive branch.

Of course there are factors that affect inflation, like demand and the price of oil traded in the world market. The price of food has surely risen since the global warming hoax and the powerful agricorp lobby has convinced our government to subsidize the turning of food into fuel.

About that new economy in the 90’s Slarti, remember how free it was in the beginning? Maybe that should tell us something. A freer market means a better economy.

Beale, can we tax our way to prosperity?

I always love it when people say our problem is that we have too many rich people.

Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Not to mention all of the people employed in the factories that make all the things she buys.

This is a line of argument that has always driven me nuts.

While I certinaly care about the rest of the world, when discussin the US Economy I’m only marginally concerned with the german factory workers making her porche, the swiss workers making her rolex, the french workers making her clothing, etc.

Luxury items are by and large built over seas. If you want to pump money into the US economy, give it to the people who will be using it at their local grocery, or who can’t afford a ferarri but wouldn’t mind having a new ford to take their kids to school in.

Dolphin, somebody is working on those ports, somebody is working in those warehouses, somebody is working in those stores.

But assume that none of that is true, do you still believe that rich people do not have a right to the money that they make, or was made by their family, and that the government should take that money from them?

Hopefully you don’t, but maybe you do.

Dolphin, the rich buy Fords.

Also, many of the people I know work in jobs here that involve overseeing the production of items in offshore factories. They wouldn’t have those jobs if people didn’t buy those products.

No, they aren’t lineworkers in the factory, but they are essential to the manufacturing process and wouldn’t have those jobs if people didn’t buy computers, photo albums, paper plates, iPods, iPod accessories, luggage, baby clothes, recipe boxes, recipe cards, underwear, etc.

In fact, now that I think about it, nearly everyone I know professionally who isn’t a doctor or a lawyer is involved in some form of overseas manufacturing oversight.

The problem with trying to get everyone to become “financially equal” is that the inevitable result is everyone becomes “equally poor and miserable”.

PJ O’Rourke-
“Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens. Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process. Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in charge of your whole life. Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you. The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. “

[…] The news that 46% of Americans think we are in a recession went and got Glen Dean’s dander all the way up: I hate to be condescending, but for all of you who do not know, a recession is two or more successive quarters of negative economic growth. We haven’t seen negative economic growth in the United States in more than six years. […]

do you still believe that rich people do not have a right to the money that they make, or was made by their family, and that the government should take that money from them?

Why not? The government takes money from me. Look, paying taxes isn’t fun for anybody, but if we want to reap the benefits of a structured society, it’s something we have to do.

In fact, now that I think about it, nearly everyone I know professionally who isn’t a doctor or a lawyer is involved in some form of overseas manufacturing oversight.

My point wasn’t to say that luxury items don’t have any impact on the economy, but rather that if I have $X amount to put into our economy, the economy will benefit MORE from putting $X into it than it will from putting $X-n into it.

Poorer people tend to spend money in their communities, out of necessity. Trickle-up economics simply makes greater common sense than trickle-down.

Poorer people tend to spend money in their communities, out of necessity. Trickle-up economics simply makes greater common sense than trickle-down.

And we po’ folkses like to spend money on booze, hookers, and lottery tickets, all of which benefit the local economy enormously.

If you want to pump money into the US economy, give it to the people who will be using it at their local grocery, or who can’t afford a ferarri but wouldn’t mind having a new ford to take their kids to school in.

Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today, teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime.

We’ve been giving out the fish in the form of wealth redistribution and entitlement programs.

How’s that been workin’ out?

The fault I see in your logic is that you assume the value of X is equal across all sectors.

But in your scenario X[/=] a constant value.

The typical family which benefits most from “trickle up” (???) economics–what I like to call “Government Handouts”–make in the neighbourhood of 30K per year.

Assuming they put every dime they’ve got into the economy, their “X”=30K.

The Evil Rich people–who I like to call “those who pay the bulk of the taxes in this country”–START OUT AT $200K.

Let’s subtract from that 200K their taxes. We’ll say conservatively that they are in a 28% tax bracket. There are higher tax brackets, but I’m assuming this family has shelters or other deductions.

That’s 56K in taxes. They’ve ALREADY put more money into the economy of the US than the poor family. And that’s BEFORE we get to their “X”–which in your scenario seems to denote the amount of money spent directly within the United States upon products and services directly within our economy.

So out of their $200K nut, the Evil!Rich person has $144,000 left.

Assuming their house note is approx. 25% of their takehome pay–a conservative estimate–that’s $36K per year.

They spend more on a house note than the poor family spends in toto. But wait! There’s still more!

They’ve got 108,000 left to spend. And I doubt they’re going to spend it ALL overseas.

But what would it matter if they would. Before they’ve spent a single dime on food, clothing, automobiles, utilities, insurance, tuition, movies, magazines, books, or cigars to light their $100 bills with, they’ve already contributed more money to the U.S. economy than a poor family ever would.

If your X is larger, you can send a lot of n overseas and still make a hefty direct contribution.

Wealth, according to Republicans, is an exercise in moral relativism. $250k/year isn’t wealthy, if we’re talking about tax cuts.

However, $50k/year is filthy rich, if we’re talking about the ability to afford healthcare for one’s children.
.

Rich people suck.

Are we done now?

Trickle-up economics simply makes greater common sense than trickle-down.

Makes sense. Water can run uphill.

Ok. Clearly we are not done.

How about we all make the same amount of money? Will that make a better world?

Since the beginning of humanity there have always been rich people. That isn’t going to change. Learn to deal with it.

This is a smoke screen for the goals of people like Hillary who want to redistribute income so they can have more power. It isn’t about money it is about power.

We don’t have car factories in Knoxville. Even if we did I buy the car I think is the best value, not the one that other people think I should buy.

The trickle up theory doesn’t work. It is a fantasy. It is difficult for me to even buy a steak from a cow raised near my home. Actually, it is almost impossible.

You can thank your hero Bill Clinton for what you despise. Just like the Bushes, he is a globalist. Just like his wife. In the end, it is about power.

Poorer people tend to spend money in their communities, out of necessity.

So, now Wal-Mart stocks only locally produced goods?

Dolphin, you answered as if I was advocating that the rich pay no taxes. I am not and you know that. But I am not surprised you took that route.

Perhaps though, based on your answer, you are advocating a flat tax for everybody, since we are all equal.

About trickle up economics, poor people not only do not pay taxes, but they get free services from the government, as well as more money back on tax day than they paid in. It seems like trickle up economics is already happening.

The real issue here is, do people have the right to make money and prosper, or should they be punished for their prosperity? Liberalism, which thrives on class envy, says they should be punished and whatever they make should be divided and redistributed amongst the rest of us. That isn’t liberty, it’s Marxism.

I hate to be condescending but according to the article:

The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales.”

I’ve got a science background. I see people use terms incorrectly every f*cking day. I don’t b*tch about it, but then again, I’m not a tool.

I don’t b*tch about it, but then again, I’m not a tool.

I do. And I am a tool.

So your thesis is proven, at least.

The United States is the strangest nation that ever existed. Even our Marxists are materialistic.

Materialism is the foundation of Marx’s philosophy.

He was not at all anti-materialism.

The United States is the strangest nation that ever existed. Even our Marxists are materialistic.

Damn straight. Go USA.

We have the best Marxists in the world. And they pay retail. Just like the Baptist.

God, I love this country.

Randomly: I’m pretty poor, and I would never, ever buy a Ford. Ewww. Ford.

The typical family which benefits most from “trickle up” (???) economics–what I like to call “Government Handouts”–make in the neighbourhood of 30K per year.dolphin, you answered as if I was advocating that the rich pay no taxes. I am not and you know that. But I am not surprised you took that route.

It’s not clear that you are not.

Perhaps though, based on your answer, you are advocating a flat tax for everybody, since we are all equal.

So are you arguing that poorest people should pay the same “flat tax” as the richest leaving them without the money to buy food and shelter? Or is your argument that the richest should pay the same “flat tax” as the poorest (as you know the poorest don’t pay taxes) thereby abolishing taxes completely which is precisely what you said you DIDN’T support in exactly the previous sentence.

Liberalism, which thrives on class envy

Perhaps you ought to stop spending so much time defining liberalism. Why do you think I ever initially stopped reading your blog. It has simply devolved into “Liberals think [insert thing that liberals don’t think]. That is wrong, therefore liberals are evil.”

It’s boring and I think I started to develop an allergy to the hay you were stuffing in your strawmen.

Randomly: I’m pretty poor, and I would never, ever buy a Ford. Ewww. Ford.

I hear you on that. I’m not poor by anybody’s standards but I’d not drive a Ford either. I drive a Camry though and most Camrys now are made in America.

Dolphin, blah blah blah. I knew you would eventually get personal.

About the Camry, it began it’s first year in NASCAR this year. Some complained, namely UAW thugs, that it wasn’t an American car. Out of all of the cars being raced though, guess which one is the only one manufactured in the United States? Here’s a hint. It isn’t the Ford, Dodge, or Chevy.

Glen - you mis-read my intention. I didn’t say people shouldn’t be rich. I merely stated that if you are going to be disenfranchising people for not knowing what a recession is, I’m going to disenfranchise people for not knowing that the gap between the poor and rich is becoming wider, and for not knowing what percentage of wealth the poorest 20% of the people possess.

I can’t stand this ‘you liberals’ bit..I could care less what you, or anyone else makes, and I enjoy earning a living and making money like anyone else. But, if you don’t understand that there are some inequities in this great country of ours, you are as ignorant as the folks who don’t understand what the word recession means.

Hmm. I think I got a little misunderstood up there. I didn’t claim we were in a recession, just that the “dang hole sho’nuff looks pretty big from up in heah,” to paraphrase a leading economist I respect.

However…

Hasn’t it always been the case that recessions are a bit clearer to see once they’ve passed? Kinda like,

“Hey, we sure have it better at this point than we did last year. Why I couldn’t even afford to buy milk for the baby!”

“You don’t think…”

“What, a recession?”

“It had all the hallmarks: people adjusting to lower standards of living, borrowing heavily against assets in order to float by, stockbrokers jumping from windows…”

“You’re thinking of a depression on that last one.”

“Oh, yeah. Well, all I know is that I was downsized due to my company being unable to carry so many domestic employees — outsourced the whole shooting match. Lost my house. I felt pretty depressed…”

“That’s not an _economic_ depression.”

“Well, sure. But it hurt all the same. Something about the dollar not performing well against Asian currencies? Or maybe it was the skyrocketing bill for health care. I forget. When you’re sucking longer on your toothbrush in the morning for the extra nutrition, it’s hard to remember. I was so miserable living hand-to-mouth.”

“Me too. Had to go get one of those high-rate mortgages just to pay for some dental work. I’ll be paying it off until the next recession.”

“Recession? Was _that_ what that was? Why, I was too busy trying to make grits out of Elmer’s glue to notice at the time…”

“Weird.”

John, there are inequities. As for disenfranchising, don’t take that so seriously. I am really just content with low voter turnout.

Dolphin, blah blah blah. I knew you would eventually get personal.

What did I say that you could possibly interpret as “getting personal.” Observing that you have a tendency to say “liberals think this thing that liberals don’t really think” and argue against it is hardly getting personal. On the other hand, I could see some arguing that you assigning offensive beliefs to others could be seen as getting personal.

and you avoided answering my questions. no surprise there.

Folks,

Our friend Glen here is just trying to piss off liberals, and apparantly he’s doing a great job!

But the truth is the only aspect of our economy that is growing is debt. This isn’t a “liberal” or “conservative” problem per se, There is plenty of blame to around. Lets just stay at each others throats and remain thralls.

Seriously. Kat, Glen… why is the exact definition of a recession such a sticking point? It matters very little whether 46% of Americans think they’re in a recession or just know times are tough. No offense to either of you, but why is it important? I don’t mean why is it important to you, but why is it important to us?

And if you want to get down to brass tacks… who gets to decide what a recession is? Sure you can quote a reputable agency defining a recession, but if I wasn’t lazy I could probably find a contradictory one like S+F apparently did.

I’m just glad for other people in the world that are annoyed by “VIN number.” I am surrounded by that at work, since a lot of phrases have been abbreviated, but people insist on using the phrase’s final word after the abbreviation Here’s an example: “UAT Test,” in which, you guessed it, the ‘T’ stands for “test.”

Oops, missed a period. Someone get me an EPT test. Hah!

Seriously. Kat, Glen… why is the exact definition of a recession such a sticking point?

It just is with me.

but why is it important to us?

Well, I think it should be important to the “rest of [you]” for the exact reason you see in this comment thread.

We have adverse economic conditions at a granular level which generally go undefined. To my knowledge there is no present economic definition for this type of thing. And I think there should be, given that capitalism is more granular in function than other economic systems.

But the truth is the only aspect of our economy that is growing is debt.

That is not correct. Both the economy, key sectors of the economy, and the debt are growing.

The Dow is down 250 points today and 46% of the country is still wrong.

Atrios. You quote Atrios? As if that is the nicer version of the Daily Kos.

The old blog joke is “why do you hate freedom”?

Updated version, why do you hate America?

I have a feeling that people who hate America deep down inside hate themselves.

Number9:

Are you relying on government data to draw that conclusion?

HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Dow down almost 400 points.

The only thing that can save this country is Hillary Clinton.
-
-
-
-
-

not being President

No worries, it’s inflation, er uh, I mean, liquidity to the rescue.

Bernanke would drop money from helicopters to keep us from going into a “recession”.

Southern Beale, you still don’t get it. The Dow crashing today does not equal a recession. For there to be a recession, there has to be two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

W, not knowing the definition doesn’t bother me as much as a public thinking the economy is bad, when unemployment is low, inflation is low, interest rates are low, and GDP is still growing. At least 46% of the country bases their opinion about the economy on feelings rather than raw data. Data doesn’t lie, emotions do. The media has a part in this, being the information wing of the Democratic party, they do their best to ensure that most of the public believes the economy is bad, in spite of economic indicators that say otherwise.

ror, when are you going to start posting again?

Glen, I would say it is more shocking that a great % Americans don’t realize how Bush has acted unconstitutionally and has subverted democracy with his legal manipulations and signing statements. As I’ve discovered, support for this administration has depended greatly on misinformation and the simple lack of info and knowledge.

To your point. Income inequality has grown significantly during the Bush admin, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes of more than $350,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928. The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression. The middle class is getting poorer, the disparity is growing. It’s great for us in the ‘investor class’ - sucks for many people.

At least 46% of the country bases their opinion about the economy on feelings rather than raw data.

I think at least 46% of the country (probably much more) relies on neither feelings nor raw data. Both feelings and raw data lie.

I think most people rely (above all else) on personal experience. The best booming economy doesn’t do any good for a person who is STILL struggling to keep their kids fed. The 46% is indicative of how many people are financially struggling. Given the choice between a PERFECT economy on paper while children go hungry or a mediocre economy on paper where a large majority of people feel like they are doing ok finacially, I’ll take the latter.

Do you guys know the difference between objective and subjective? The last two comments are pablum.

Save the fertilizer for the lawn.

Damn, not often I run across a word online that I have to look up.

Dolphin, you always paint this picture of Hoover-villes and people going hungry. It’s complete BS. America is so great that it’s “poor” people are overweight.

William, you mention people “receiving their largest share”, as if the economy is a fixed pie. You don’t understand economics William. That’s the nicest way to put it. And another thing, believe it or not, George Bush doesn’t apply to every conversation.

Glen,
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

Before swiftboating me, you should know that I almost never cite specific stats without backup.

I based what I said on a study by Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics. They said in a NYT article such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.

“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”

So, Glen, what are you going to now? Swiftboat the economics professors that did this study?, Berkeley, or the NYT? That would be the Republican thing to do.

But you see William, I don’t care if people are getting wealthy. I don’t care about “fairness”. A government that promotes fairness, does so at the expense of liberty, and it ends up with neither one of those things. I don’t believe stopping somebody from making money helps me. William, if you are able to make a billion bucks, I’m happy for you. In fact, I might even work for you. It doesn’t make me mad. Like I said before, economics is not a fixed pie, the economy is ever expanding. It’s not like there is only X amount of dollars out there and if I make more, you make less. That’s not how it works.

America is so great that it’s “poor” people are overweight.

I think most people will have to admit there’s a certain irony to writing a post calling half of America morons for being ignorant of the specific technical definition of a word within the bounds of a very specific field of usage only to then go and suggest that there’s no poverty in america

Oh Lord, discussing anything with you is pointless.

Glen:

Thank you for asking.

The thing is I actually have a “gig”, if you will, as a writer. So whatever limited time that was previously available to dedicate to my writing hobby is now pretty much spoken for for me to meet that obligation.

Glen:

P.S.

I’ve noticed you’ve made several assertions regarding the performance of the economy. Personally, I think it would be dubious to rely on government data alone to draw conclusions regarding economic performance.

Really, most people don’t care about “getting rich”. “Liberals” aren’t advocating class warfare. They want to feel like they are productive. They want to feel like they are appreciated. They want to feel like their efforts matter. They don’t mind working hard, but they want to take some dignity home with them at the end of the day. I agree with most of your assertions regarding economics. However, ignoring “liberal” concerns compromises our ability to cultivate our human resources to the extent we need to in order to compete in the global economy without resorting to force, IMHO.

Glen, You’ll start caring when the economic situation deteriorates to the point that the lower middle working class becomes desperate enough to affect things on your doorstep. I’m talking about crime, overburdened indigent health care and social services, etc… Such things could have a domino effect on society as history has proven. Like you, I don’t care if people make billions, but I do care when people who work their ass off are desperately impoverished. To keep this struggling class under control, Bush has had relative success with his use of fear and appeals to their christianity and ‘moral values’

And the thing is, if the “doomsday scenario” hits, you’ll be alright if you’re rich. But only if your Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or Dick Cheney rich. If not, you’ll be in a soup line with the rest of us.

Glen:

P.S. Your assumption that the economy is “ever expanding” is exactly what leads to the bust cycles that have plaged capitalism since industrialization. Printing more dollars does not translate to an “expanding economy”. This is what I mean when I say a large portion of our growth data is inflationary. Some estimates indicate that currency inflation is running double digit since the Fed stopped publishing the M3.

You’ll start caring when the economic situation deteriorates to the point that the lower middle working class becomes desperate enough to affect things on your doorstep.

Gosh, is that a threat, William? And that’s the larger point of this post, in my opinion . . . what do we expect from the populace with folks like you (and the MSM) fueling envy, pushing entitlement, impugning economic liberty, etc.?

Entitlement doesn’t apply to those who work. How long did the GOP keep the minimum wage the same while Bush let in millions of illegals to do the dirty work?

What do we expect from the populace? Perhaps the oppposite of you. You’d like the populace to remain poor and stupid, and keep buying the fear and moral values politics, because you’d have to be stupid to believe what the GOP is peddling now.

When people who work can’t pay their bills, they become desperate. The murder and burglary rates in the US dropped steadily during the Clinton presidency between 1991 and 2000 when the income disparity was less. For the past 3 years under Bush, murder and burglary have risen, so has income disparity.

I said nothing of impugning economic liberty.

Ned:

I think this is a great example of “liberals” and “conservatives” not speaking the same language. I didn’t get what you got from William’s post at all. I saw it as a warning, not a threat. I did not take it as “fueling envy, pushing entitlement, impugning economic liberty, etc.?” but rather as an assertion (and a correct one) that “economic liberty” does not cover things like externalizing costs in the form of pollution and exploiting labor for all its worth.

A healthy market economy is supposed to strive for manageable sustained growth, not a mad dash for the bottom line every quarter. When we allow ourselves to believe that a company’s value can be determined by its stock price, rather than the other way around, we are asking for things like Enron to happen.

Glen:

One other thing: for an industrial economy to expand it needs access to cheap abundant energy. Unfortunately, those days may be coming to an end. Apparently the powers that be are positioning themselves for that contingency. I can’t prove this, but it makes sense. The Chinese have a curse, “may you live in interesting times.” It doesn’t get any more interesting than this.

I think this is a great example of “liberals” and “conservatives” not speaking the same language.

The language is English. Ned speaks English just fine.

William speaks some derivative of English with the emphasis on “feelings” and pseudo “fairness”.

The place you guys want exist, ever consider moving to Sweden or Amsterdam? Perhaps even San Francisco? It might be easier than hoping for something that will never happen. The America you desire doesn’t exist except for a few places in Crazy Cali.

“The America you desire doesn’t exist except for a few places in Crazy Cali.”

#9, spoken like a true 30%er.

Number9:

Really, you bill yourself as the “ultimate authority on everything” as well as anyone.

Just the same, I think Adam Smith has you outpaced in the credentials department on this issue:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_499.shtml

Bush apologists:

Here is corroborating testimony supporting my assertions regarding the economy above:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2412.shtml

I don’t expect you to accept the conclusions. You are of course free to believe the government instead.

William (aka “Anonymous”),
Man are you full of it. It’s one thing to disagree on policy, but you just accused me of wanting people to be poor and stupid? I thought we were supposed to be the mean-spirited ones . . .

In any event. The minimum wage affects poverty? Prove it. Liberals are opposed to those coming to do the dirty work? Prove it. Liberals are more committed to quality education? Prove it. “Economic disparity” equals envy when “the poor” have cable TV, buddy.

RoR!–I don’t defend Bush, per se, but he’s not evuhl for wanting to decrease the tax burden (”erase” is more like it–if you’re talking about the lower class), or because he thinks it is wiser to take the fight to Jihadists, or . . . or . . .

I’ll try to take a look at your link . . .

I think this is a great example of “liberals” and “conservatives” not speaking the same language. I didn’t get what you got from William’s post at all. I saw it as a warning, not a threat. I did not take it as “fueling envy, pushing entitlement, impugning economic liberty, etc.?” . . .

No doubt, I chose terms that frame the issues in the light most favorable to my views. I say let’s have the debate, but it is crucial to Liberalism to impugn the motives and character of those who disagree.

. . . “economic liberty” does not cover things like externalizing costs in the form of pollution and exploiting labor for all its worth.

Who says? You outlawing “exploitation”? Who’s to say what constitutes “exploitation”? Do you have “evidence” to support your definition?

Who’s hijacking the thread — Ned or Ror?

Can I get a call from the referees?
.

William:

You really must learn to accept the wise counsel of people like Ned Williams, Glen Dean and ******9. They are, after all, so well versed in the intracies of economics. Tsk, tsk, tsk–you really need to study to have any argument with those fellows. Of course, bringing facts to weigh in against their zealous idiotology is a losing proposition, regardless.

‘it is crucial to Liberalism to impugn the motives and character of those who disagree’.

C’mon, Ned..cut the crap. You just impugned the motives and character of liberals with that statement..but I forgot, hypocrisy is not a big deal.

Ned,
what is this ‘aka Anonymous’?

For what it’s worth… according to the NCES, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that reading proficiency of high school seniors has decreased through the Bush presidency and is presently lower now than at anytime during the Clinton presidency.

I guess thats what happens when we elect a president that is not fluent in English

“As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” –George W. Bush, on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007.

“There is no question that there is some unsettling times in the housing market.”—Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007

“More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way.” –George W. Bush, Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Read the thread, John.

And sure hypocrisy’s a big deal, but not if it’s the only moral standard one cares about.

Who’s hijacking the thread — Ned or Ror?

Can I get a call from the referees?

Yup, they’re both hijacking the thread. That’s a 5 yard penalty and 3rd down, or something.

Ned, I’ve read most of the thread. A lazy generalization about liberalism is just as lazy as me saying that conservatives don’t care about poor people. I am sick to death of people saying that ‘all liberals are ________’ or some such. The thread is irrelevant to that thought.

William, take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else.

William, take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else.

But feel free to say that Saddam refused to let UN inspectors into Iraq prior to March, 2003, or that the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq.
.

Kat, If I quoted your exact words, would you consider it “anti-Coble screedery?”

John,
Sorry, I missed your chiding of William. But I see your point. I guess it grates on me that Liberal rhetoric (certainly campaign rhetoric) hammers perceived motives for policy rather than the consequences of the policy. And William probably couldn’t have served up any better examples than debates about the minimum wage, education policy, and illegal immigration.

William, (aka “Anonymous”)
Yeah, I’ve noticed you haven’t been over to the site recently.

Anyway, you can blame Ted Kennedy for the education policy during this administration.

And I guess Al Gore’s Beta Club public speaking award makes him a competent leader? But only those of us in the 30% are stupid enough to follow Dubya’s lead, right?

But feel free to say that Saddam refused to let UN inspectors into Iraq prior to March, 2003, or that the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq.

Gee, I missed those comments in this thread.

Hey, I’ll take credit for that comment, must be true, aye Ned? You teen sex god you.

Ned - you do a fine job of chiding William on your own. I dislike broad-brush strokes from all angles.

Gee, I missed those comments in this thread.

It was on the thread that KatCo closed, when I wasn’t content to let those lies by Odd Integer stand unchallenged, as she would have preferred.
.

William,
Yep. But I grew out of it.

John,
Good point, between him and me, I’m the only one that could be guilty of hypocrisy, I guess.

JP,
Wow, speaking of hijacking threads . . .
[.]

Kat, If I quoted your exact words, would you consider it “anti-Coble screedery?”

Depends on the words.

Would someone please post some pro-Bush screedery so we can get some balance around here?

Kat, Never you you were such a loyal 30%er.

Psst Ned, I was too, since 13, but no mistakes, education does work when it’s not restricted by the holier-than-thou moral warriors. I think restriction is what conservatism is all about right? Priorities, as demonstrated in my last post.

Kat, Never you you were such a loyal 30%er.

I’m not. Can’t stand the guy.

Would someone please post some pro-Bush screedery so we can get some balance around here?

You’ll have to look elsewhere–other than me, I mean.

I think restriction is what conservatism is all about right?

Watching conservatives define liberalism and watching liberals define conservatism is like watching Siamese twins attempt to have sex with a fish. It’s awkward, uncomfortable and comes out looking strange.

Watching conservatives define liberalism and watching liberals define conservatism is like watching Siamese twins attempt to have sex with a fish. It’s awkward, uncomfortable and comes out looking strange.

It is also unpleasant for the fish.

William:

You are just too darned sensitive. As you are well aware, liberalcommsymps like you have the absolute corner on hypocrisy–leaving entirely too little of it for folks like ******9, Glen Dean and (dare I say it) Katherine Coble. There, now I’ve made myself a target for their reichtous rage–boy, am I in deep doo-doo.

Glen Dean:

You seem like a smart guy, so why don’t you cite anything folks can check on to back up your theories. ******9, um, never mind.

‘Watching conservatives define liberalism and watching liberals define conservatism is like watching Siamese twins attempt to have sex with a fish. It’s awkward, uncomfortable and comes out looking strange.’

thank you, David Lynch could not have done so well as that discription

That’s going to be a hard image to shake.

I hardly think Ned and I have hijacked the thread. It certainly appears that the post topic invites policy discussion.

Ned:

“Economic liberty” does not cover things like externalizing costs in the form of pollution and exploiting labor for all its worth.

This statement is based in the moral philosophy of Adam Smith.

“Liberty” and “rights” are not absolute. There are responsibilities associated with both. Entrepreneurs are entitled to profit. Obviously this is a necessary incentive. However, indulging in amoral greed is an abdication of the responsibility which is needed in order for a market economy to serve society. Failure to observe this has a tendency to initiate “topple down” economics. What you end up with then is a lot of hungry “liberals”.

In a healthy market economy, by-and-large no one’s quality of life should be declining if the economy is growing.

Democommie, what theories do you need me to back up? Are you talking about present economic numbers, historical numbers?

John, I don’t know about the other Rethuglicans around here, but I can’t post much of anything pro-Bush. My love is domestic policy and economics. To me, Bush is a liberal. But since I love all people, including liberals, and am able to find good points in everyone, I will take a stab at it. Let’s see…. I think Bush is a descent human being, a loving husband and father. I think he is a loyal son to his parents. I appreciate the tax cuts, but not the fact the cuts allowed him to expand domestic spending more than LBJ. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to hold the rope on foreign policy, in spite of a massive media propaganda campaign to turn the public against the war. The thing I really like about him is that he doesn’t care about poll numbers. He does what he thinks is right. Sometimes I don’t agree with his judgment, but I respect a man who is firm in his principles. His governing style is that of a trustee, not a partisan or politico. When making character judgments, having principles is pretty important to people like me. His father and Clinton did not have this quality. They both were poll watchers.

I am not a Bush fan, though I voted for him in both elections. I have no regrets about that though. The alternatives were a Gore or Kerry presidency, both of which would have insured economic disaster.

ensured that is.

Glen Dean:

Exactly those. You like to make fun of William’s theories without acknowledging that you’ve even checked his sources. Yet you seem to think that everyone should just accept your assertions about numbers. Also, if you’re only citing one set of statistics they should be someone who is not funded by the people they’re reporting on.

I think Bush is a descent human being

Yes. Like his poll numbers, Bush has been in descent for a very long time. “Paging Dr. Freud!”
.

President George Bush has more ‘nads than any Democrat now in office. Dems are more interested in their poll numbers and ‘international standings’ (except for a few when it comes to Pelosi’s failure with Turkey?) Dems will go to great extremes (including dragging down the economy) to get themselves into power.

Harm the country? As far as they see it, if they aren’t in power, the harm is happening, baby…

So, William, ready to recant?

Oh for Christ’s bloody sake. If you can find a single thing Michael Ledeen has EVER been right about, I’ll eat my hat.
.

indulging in amoral greed is an abdication of the responsibility which is needed . . .

According to whom? One political philosopher? So, I guess we can outlaw amoral greed?

Finally a true 24%er!

Glen,

It’s your post. I’ll be happy to discuss Iraq, but I don’t want to be guilty of hijacking the thread.

Ned:

Are you coming out in support of amoral greed?

Also, that particular MORAL philosopher was held in extremely high regard by the folks that arranged this shindig.

Are you coming out in support of amoral greed?

Also, that particular MORAL philosopher was held in extremely high regard by the folks that arranged this shindig.

Though “greed” is certainly in the eyes of the beholder, no, I’m not. I’m just pointing out that you have various morals that you are content to impose by force of law on others. Likewise, one philosopher–even one held in extremely high regard by America’s founders, is hardly the authority that you’ve demanded in other contexts as a basis for a policy. And I don’t want to play gotcha, just pointing it out for future discussions.

You like to make fun of William’s theories without acknowledging that you’ve even checked his sources.

The Daily Kos is a source? You will have to do better than that.

Ned:

I never said I was content to impose MY morals on others by force. Smith said something about “common humanity”. Greed may be in the eyes of the beholder, but when more and more folks’ quality of life are in decline when there is no recession (at least officially) more of these people are going to “start beholding” all the time. We are all vulnerable to be victims of the law of unintended consequences:

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream “Oppression!”
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
“The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.”
Now there’s no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Neil Peart

Ned:

P.S. I can argue that I know with reasonable certainty what the outcome of unchecked excessive greed will entail.

Ms. Coble:

“William, take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else.”

I missed your admonition to all of the wingers to take their anti-Clinton screedery somewhere else.

******8* & ******9:

You fellers add so much to the debate with all your facts and statistics. ******8*, if your hero pretendsident, George the Decider, “has more ‘nads than any Democrat now in office.” why is that he never bothered to pick up a gun or pilot a warplane when he had the chance?

Oh, Mr. Dean, sir:

You still haven’t shown us your “work”. If you don’t show your work we’ll have to mark your project as “Incomplete”.

Y’know, Glen, having re-read your last comment I can’t figure out whether you’re a total cynic or if you just drink the Bushco Koolaid with extra arsenic.

why is that he never bothered to pick up a gun or pilot a warplane when he had the chance?

Irrelevant and boring. This isn’t NiT.

Use people’s names. Everyone else does. It is getting annoying. Casual readers have no idea who you are referring to.

Lastly, add something to the discussion. These childish posts do not meet the standard.

Democommie, I’m not sure if you are just having fun or if you are really this mean. I did write a post for you. It is saved and waiting on Katherine to publish it.

Oh, dear. More bad news on the economnic front.“Asian Stocks Fall, and European Markets Follow” Globalization makes the world markets less stable, and when banks fail in the U.S., it causes repercussions around the world. But because we’re more connected than ever before, it’s harder to recover from these market swings.

“SINGAPORE, Oct. 22 — Renewed concerns about the health of the American economy sent Asian stocks sharply lower today, and European stocks also registered declines in early trading.

“Following a dramatic decline by stock prices in the United States on Friday — the 20th anniversary of the 1987 “Black Monday” stock market crash — investors in Asia sold off stocks on worries that the United States mortgage crisis would crimp demand among American consumers for Asia’s exports.”

tsk tsk

In other news, Merril Lynch spoke to investors last week and were extremely negative about the American economy. They recommended investing in gold and oil. Not encouraging.

I guess you can stick your head in the sand and sing “Everything Is Beautiful” at the top of your lungs or you can take a long hard look at your investments and take appropriate actions.

“William, take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else.”

I missed your admonition to all of the wingers to take their anti-Clinton screedery somewhere else.

You know, I don’t see much balance for the OddIntegers-Neds-Glens-KatCobles over here. But William, this is their house, not ours, and they’re free to set the editorial tone as they wish. We can’t criticize that decision, just know that MCB is largely a conservative opinion site.

But I will say it seems a little hypocritical to attack a commenter for making a point one doesn’t see on the main page too often.

Just sayin’ …

Beale, the word hate is used more times on the front page of your blog than any other Nashville blog. 11 times to be exact.

You have your editorial tone, other blogs have theirs. The reason MCB is so popular is that there is balance.

You know, I don’t see much balance for the OddIntegers-Neds-Glens-KatCobles over here. But William, this is their house, not ours, and they’re free to set the editorial tone as they wish. We can’t criticize that decision, just know that MCB is largely a conservative opinion site.

I’m trying my damndest. John H is trying his damndest. We’re trying like hell to provide balance here, but also keep in mind that the conservative Nashville bloggers outnumber the liberal Nashville bloggers.

I really don’t think that this place is ALL that conservative. And I don’t think Kat was speaking editorially when she said to take the anti-Bush screedery somewhere else, I think she was speaking as a commenter.

Now, I’m off to take Megs to the dentist, y’all be nice while I’m gone, okay?

I think she was speaking as a commenter.

I was speaking as someone reading a thread about economics only to have that thread about economics turn into another tract from Daily Kos Mission.

[…] am going to accept commenter Democommie’s challenge to support the things I said in this post with linked references. I dedicate this unexciting venture to that coyote who has been known to […]

We’re trying like hell to provide balance here, but also keep in mind that the conservative Nashville bloggers outnumber the liberal Nashville bloggers.

I don’t think that’s true. In keeping with the voting pattern of the region, it looks relatively even, from where I sit.

Of course, no one from the conservative side of the fence who comments here is called out for hijacking a thread when THEY are responding, factually, to another commenter, regardless of whether or not the conversation relates directly to the topic of the post. I think that has a lot to do with why it appears unbalanced, here, these days.
.

We can’t criticize that decision, just know that MCB is largely a conservative opinion site.

Is there some proof to go along with the opinion? That seems very subjective.

Us vs. them. Typical blog ploy from the nice people at the Daily Kos. And that is all this little tactic is.

The behavior of what is described as the conservative side is very different from the behavior of the radical side of few MCB commenters. No one is screeching and linking from Free Republic, Power Line, or Little Green Footballs. You want to quote from Daily Kos, fine. Go ahead. But don’t cry when you get called on it.

The only way MCB could be balanced in the eyes of a few people is for it to turn into NiT.

So why are some of you here instead of NiT? Is it because NiT is dead?

Would you feel there would be more balance if the conservative people just kept their thoughts to themselves? That is what I am hearing. And I think it is pretty funny.

We can’t criticize that decision, just know that MCB is largely a conservative opinion site.

Yeah, I disagree with this statement.

There are plenty of contributors who lean toward the liberal end of the spectrum, but unfortunately, they are not posting here for one reason or another. (I’m not criticizing, we all have lives other than MCB.)

It’s just the way the dice have rolled that the contributors who are posting here more often are on the conservative side.

Besides, it’s the commenting that really gets the good dialog going with opposing viewpoints. I, personally, learn more from the comments than the posts anyhow.

And I disagree, too. Most of the posts here are about what others are saying, and the references are generally limited–and I for one almost always attempt to post about what a (perceived) Liberal blogger is saying.

I sure don’t sense a Conservativish tilt in threads when peeking out from under a dolphin/jp/ror!/SB dog pile. Y’all don’t mind if we have dialogues on stuff, do you?

ror!–
Sure you’re arguing for a particular moral viewpoint, you just think your “authority” is better than that of others who do the same.

Regarding “evidence” for your moral viewpoints, I can tell you with reasonable certainty the negative (ostensibly unintended) consequences/impact of a host of Liberal policies, so? And I would hope that you would be throwing water and not fuel on any “coveting-because-of-perceived-greed” sentiments.

MCB is largely a conservative opinion site.

I disagree with this statement too. As Glen Dean and #9 have begun posting more it’s begun to “feel” more conservative, but that’s just because they post alot more anti-liberal rhetoric directly in their posts rather than saving it for the comments. But most posters (liberal and conservative) are still limiting it to just a short thought on the post(s) they are linking to.

But most posters (liberal and conservative) are still limiting it to just a short thought on the post(s) they are linking to.

I think that is more style than ideology. Some bloggers use more of an aggregator style and some bloggers use more of an essayist style.

I think the other major style difference is that some posters ask questions and some provide information.

But the biggest thing I see here is that the liberal posters are not radical liberals. That doesn’t mean they are moderates either.

Balance is a subjective issue. Some conservatives may see Glenn and I as moderates. So I don’t have much concern when the argument is made “it’s not balanced”. It depends on the individual viewpoint.

Isn’t this more about tone? Most people don’t respond well to the high pitched one note symphony.

As Glen Dean and #9 have begun posting more it’s begun to “feel” more conservative…

Maybe that’s what I’m picking up on, though Ned doesn’t hide his conservative leanings in his posts either, nor, for that matter, does Kat. And again, I’m not saying they should — as I said, this is their house, not mine. Rock on, you know?

The point is not to criticize MCB for being what it naturally wants to be but to say when a liberal like William or myself or JP comes over and says something in the comments, it’s a odd to then be attacked and accused of hijacking the thread into a DailyKos rant. I’m sorry, did we not want conversation?

As a liberal I certainly notice it, and I don’t hang out here as much as I used to as a result. Why go where my ideas aren’t welcome?

The only way MCB could be balanced in the eyes of a few people is for it to turn into NiT.

Well, that’s not what I’m saying. Vanilla doesn’t work for me.

Why go where my ideas aren’t welcome?

Is it possible that it is not your ideas but your sources, style, and tone that is being questioned?

Is it possible that it is not your ideas but your sources, style, and tone that is being questioned?

And yours? What of yours? I see very little difference between you and me where sources, style and tone are concerned.

What’s so funny is that I only post about three times a week, not including the post about sports. And also, while I respect Ned a whole lot, his and my style of conservative is a lot different. So is mine and Katherine’s. #9 is probably closer to me on a lot of things, but we still differ on some. What I am saying is that, we aren’t working together, like the guys at Q and O and even Powerline, which are two vastly different conservative sites. We are all individuals with individual ideas. In fact, though I call myself a conservative as an acceptance of new language, I will always consider myself to be a true liberal.

SB,
MCB doesn’t “want to be” Conservative, not from what I’ve seen.

And it is one thing to have “conversation” and another to start talking past each other to some perceived audience. Some people do that . . . you know who you are. So, while I’d say most ideas are welcome on this site, the vitriol isn’t. I’m not thinking of anyone in particular (okay, actually I am, but you’re not one of them), but I think it is in general a good rule to consider whether I would say what I’m saying around a dinner table as readily as I’ll say it in some comments.

What I am saying is that, we aren’t working together, like the guys at Q and O and even Powerline…

I think that’s pretty obvious. Lots of different flavors of conservative over here. Which is nice, for a conservative blog!

Maybe that’s what I’m picking up on, though Ned doesn’t hide his conservative leanings in his posts either, nor, for that matter, does Kat.

Well, Ned doesn’t seem to post that much (as opposed to commenting). Kat i think doesn’t hide her conservative leanings but for the most part, when Kat posts something with conservative leanings (in my opinion) it’s a conservative post. That’s different than #9 and Glen (and even, to a slightly lesser degree, Ned). They don’t post so much “conservative” as “anti-liberal.” It’s the combativeness that I think pushes the perception of a rightward drift.

And it is one thing to have “conversation” and another to start talking past each other to some perceived audience.

Well, as anyone who’s been around blogs for a number of years knows, blog threads tend to evolve into their own thing, they take on a life of their own and there’s really no way to control that. Go over to Atrios and you’ll see what I mean, a thread about economics will quickly become a conversation about rock bands or Laura Bush’s middle east tour or MST3000 or lord knows what all.

And as to the vitriol, well, that’s hard to control too; conversations get heated, especially when threads are on emotionally-charged topics like the death penalty or abortion. That’s just part of it. Sometimes dinner is pleasant, sometimes you’re throwing plates of spaghetti at each other.

I guess I just really took umbrage to the whole “take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else” comment. I couldn’t read that and not express my feelings about it.

They don’t post so much “conservative” as “anti-liberal.” It’s the combativeness that I think pushes the perception of a rightward drift.

Could you provide an example of your subjective opinion?

They don’t post so much “conservative” as “anti-liberal.” It’s the combativeness that I think pushes the perception of a rightward drift.

Yeah you’re right, that’s a big distinction.

Could you provide an example of your subjective opinion?

Not to answer for dolphin, but the last post you did linking to me, the Randi Rhodes, “right wing hate” post, definitely qualifies.

Beale, you did what reporters call “getting too far in front of the story”. You took a chance and got burned.

Randi Rhodes said on Air America that she emailed her company after her fall to cover her shift saying she “thought” she had been mugged or that “someone” had bumped into her, knocked her down, and fled. No mention of hateful wingnuts assaulting her.

A co-host at Air America took Randi’s email and got too far in front of the story. He trusted Randi’s email and he made a big mistake.

Need proof:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HGlgQKstMEs

I always distinguish between liberals, which comprise most of my family, and extremists liberals. I have no problem with liberals. Most of my friends are liberals. Extremists from either side are boring, redundant, and not helpful in any way.

But I do have a problem when people lie, exaggerate, or use statistics to lie. You can count every post I have ever made, how many times do you think you will find the word hate?

Witnesses report Randi Rhodes fell because she was intoxicated. So was your post a pro-conservative post? Or was it an anti-conservative post?

If you wish to paint such pictures, you might want to find a brush that is not so broad. Of course I objected to your post. You were wrong on each count and all you accomplished was to show the prejudice you have.

Don’t be hating. It’s not good for you, and it’s boring.

Could you provide an example of your subjective opinion?

Hmm.. an example of my subjective opinion? Ok, it is my subjective opinion that there is no better ice cream flavor than plain old vanilla.

Now if you’re asking for examples that support my statement, look no further than the very post we are replying to. Glen begins his third paragraph by acknowledging that he is being condescending. Look at the title for pete’s sake, it’s on giant insult.

It’s my “subjective opinion” that the combativeness of certain posts pushes the perception of a rightward drift. The notion that a post communicating one’s own view is less combative than one attacking another’s is a matter of fact.

I’m not even suggesting that one is inherently right and the other inherently wrong,, but they are distinctly different approaches which (I think, now we’re back to opinion) leave distinctly different impressions to the mind of the reader.

I guess I just really took umbrage to the whole “take the anti-Bush screedery someplace else” comment. I couldn’t read that and not express my feelings about it.

Which is fine.

But I had to express my thoughts about the comment.

Go over to Atrios and you’ll see what I mean, a thread about economics will quickly become a conversation about rock bands or Laura Bush’s middle east tour or MST3000 or lord knows what all.

Exactly. Thank you for making my point.

This blog is not ATRIOS.

In case it wasn’t clear with what I said to RoR! last week about the one-note symphony, I guess I’ll repeat it here.

We’ve got a handful of commenters that I’d like to see stay and contribute something to the community.

But to use your “dinner table” analogy–

I don’t care if we are having a civilized conversation OR throwing spaghetti. Either thing is cool with me.

What I don’t groove on is having a few people who are–as I once called another commenter at NiT–Magic 8 Ball commenters.

They have a few vague, stock responses that may or may not fit the conversation at hand. And rather than attempting to join in the ongoing conversation it becomes “Oh! Here’s a place for me to insert Macro Number 16!”

It’s rude because it’s not participation, it’s an attempt at domination.

Back to the dinner table analogy…it’s as though we’re all either quietly eating OR throwing spaghetti and then someone comes in dressed in a Red Sox uniform and starts reading the Gettysburg Address aloud in French.

I had no problems with William’s comments about the economy under Bush–they were valid and germaine to the discussion, regardless of whether or not I agreed with them.

But when he started in with “heh! George Bush is a dummy head! Here’s some stupid quotes from the dummy head!” I wanted to make it perfectly clear that this is not that kind of blog.

If you want that, go to Atrios. Or Kos. Or Loose TN Canon.

It’s my “subjective opinion” that the combativeness of certain posts pushes the perception of a rightward drift. The notion that a post communicating one’s own view is less combative than one attacking another’s is a matter of fact.

From an email I sent to the “board” of MCB:

The problem I’m having right now, general as it may seem, is that we keep talking about “balance”.

But we’ve got 8 admins.
We’ve got 34 contributing authors.

That’s 42 people.

Of those 42 people: 15 are actively, vocally liberal. 4 are libertarian. 1 is a strict constitutionalist. 4 are conservative. The rest are apolitical or unvocal with their political opinions.

I feel we’ve led several liberal-leaning horses to this water, but we can’t force very many of them to contribute. Any ideas on how to change that?

I don’t know if I see soliciting more liberal-leaning contributers as a primary solution to this problem. As far as political- and quasi-political bloggers go, our contributer’s list leans heavily left. Unfortunately most of those people do not post regularly. Even on open-posting days.

I’m willing to discuss changes in structure and posting policy. Anything to broaden the pool of ACTIVE authors.

But I don’t think our slate is unbalanced in a conservative direction.

That email was written two weeks ago.

The “balance” of this site is of great concern to me.

SB, as far as I’m concerned, your views are very welcome here. So are those of all the more “radical” liberals. We *do* need people’s voices who represent every end of the spectrum.

Anyway, I just got home and don’t have much time at all to spend at MCB today, but I did want to clear that up, everyone’s welcome here, as long as they’re not personally attacking other commenters or being complete trolls that piss me off.

Of course, if you’re a troll that makes me laugh, you’re welcome to stay.

Of those 42 people: 15 are actively, vocally liberal.

I wouldn’t know, but from the perspective of an MCB visitor as opposed to an editor or contributing author, I don’t see 15 different flavors of liberal over here, I’ve seen maybe two.

Off the top of my head if someone were to ask me who the liberal bloggers at MCB are, I’d say John, Ivy and newscoma. I couldn’t come up with 12 other names if my life depended on it. If there are others, then perhaps they don’t post enough to resonate with me or maybe they don’t post about politics. I will say the conservative authors that DO post about politics seem to do so exclusively — that is their “specialty.” Which is great, I’m not complaining, that just might account for my perception of a lack of “balance.”

If I had a vote in this, I’d ask a blogger like dolphin or Mack to be one of your liberal voices — both of these folks are able to post on political issues thoughtfully without alienating visitors with their tone. They’re both probably going to kill me now for saying that! Sorry, just thought I’d throw that out there.

Re this: Magic 8 Ball commenters, I guess you’d have to give me an example because I don’t get that, but again I may not be over here enough to know what you’re talking about. It has felt to me like when liberals expresss a point of view — passionately, but whatever — there are threats to kill the thread or whatever.

Re. “anti-liberal” posts (v. “Conservative” posts) I’m not sure exactly what that is referencing, but one thing that makes me want to post is extremism . . . not extreme views, but extreme conduct that make