THERE IS FEAR AND TREMBLING ON WALL STREET as the ugly phenomenon of class warfare is increasingly fostered by liberals and union bosses! Crippling taxation threatens!
Or so one would surely believe if following the latest bulletins from the right-wing front. For a brief connection with reality, however, consider the following as reported in The Huffington Post by Mark Gongloff on Jan. 2.
From the Wall Street Journal editorial page column by Bret Stephens: “Stephens on Monday declared that the United States does not have an income inequality problem, but rather an ‘envy’ problem.
“To prove his point, Stephens accused President Obama of misleading the public in a big speech last month about economic mobility and inequality. ‘The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income — it now takes half,’ Obama said in the speech.
Stephens declared this statement incorrect in several ways:
“Here is a factual error, marred by an analytical error, compounded by a moral error. (Moral! … Wow, that’ll shake em up!) It’s the top 20 percent that take in just over half of aggregate income, according to the Census Bureau, not the top 10 percent. That figure is essentially unchanged since the mid-1990s, when Bill Clinton was president. And it isn’t dramatically different from 1979, when the top fifth took in 44 percent of aggregate income.”
Besides which, according to Stephens, so what!?
“In 1979 the mean household income of the bottom 20 percent was $4,006. By 2012, it was $11,490. That’s an increase of 186 percent. For the middle class, the increase was 211 percent. For the top fifth it’s 320 percent. The richer have outpaced the poorer in growing their incomes, just as runners will outpace joggers who will, in turn, outpace walkers. But, as James Taylor might say, the walking man walks.”
A rejoinder from Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist: “As James Taylor might also say, ‘The bulls…ing man bulls…s!’” Original in Krugman’s down-home terms!
Unfortunately, if reality is of the slightest concern, Stephens was not adjusting that income for inflation. As noted by Krugman, when adjusted for inflation “the average income of the bottom 20 percent of households has actually fallen by nearly 3 percent since 1979, according to Census Bureau data. The average income of the top 20 percent is up nearly 43 percent during that same period. The income of the top 5 percent is up nearly 64 percent.”
On Tuesday, University of Michigan economist Miles Kimball wrote, “It is hard to read the 186 percent figure in this passage in any way that is not egregiously misleading. Even on the editorial page, a major newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal has the responsibility to screen out clear analytical errors.” (Even Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ?!)
Krugman on Thursday noted another big error in Stephens’ column: “Stephens relied on Census data to declare that it is the top 20 percent, not the top 10 percent, that takes home half of all U.S. income. But more precise data on inequality have been compiled from tax returns by the respected economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California-Berkeley. And those numbers do indeed show that the top 10 percent now has half of all U.S. income.
“In his piece Stephens trashes Obama, accusing him of making a factual error when he did no such thing; then proceeds to commit just about every statistical sin you can imagine in an attempt to minimize the rise in inequality,” Krugman added. “In the process he leaves his readers more ignorant than they were before.”
I draw further from two relevant pieces in the Jan. 20 edition of Nation magazine. First, from “Welcome to the New America: Low-Wage Nation,” by Saket Soni:
“In addition, while we are working longer and harder, wages are stagnant. Between 2000 and 2011, the U.S. economy grew by more than 18 percent, while the median income for working families declined by 12.4 percent. Once upon a time, workers shared the economic prosperity of their employers: until 1975, wages accounted for more than 50 percent of America’s GDP. But by 2013, wages had fallen to a record low of just 43.5 percent of GDP. Overall compensation, which factors in health care and other benefits, has also hit bottom.”
Next, from the same Nation issue, from “Our Impoverished Poverty Debate”:
“January will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the War on Poverty, but what is most notable today is how impoverished our discussion of poverty is. Political leaders in both parties pledge to save the ‘middle class,’ because polls show that most Americans consider themselves part of the broad middle.
“… poverty scars this rich nation. A recent report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that among thirty-five developed nations, the United States ranks thirty-fourth, with only Romania having a higher child poverty rate. We are also next to last in what UNICEF calls the ‘child poverty gap,’ the gap between the poverty line and the median income of all families below it. (Italics mine.)
“Childhood poverty translates into poor health, poor education and poor prospects. It’s no accident that the top country in international education rankings — Finland — also has the lowest levels of childhood poverty. So you’d think Washington would be focused on reducing childhood poverty, mass unemployment, family distress. Instead, Washington has decided to administer a little ‘tough love.’ Congress cut food stamps by 7 percent in November, and in January 1.3 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits.” (That should shape up the slackers!)
Finally, I noted with interest a quote from the surprising new Catholic pope. In his recent apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis wrote starkly about the moral challenge of poverty: “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘Thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
To the pope’s interesting excursion into this political thicket, American conservatives responded with hysteria. Rush Limbaugh accused him of peddling “pure Marxism.” Louis Woodhill in Forbes scorned him for “Papal Bull” that seemed “copied and pasted out of The Nation or Mother Jones.”
What in the world is one to do with a pope who expresses concern for the poor?!
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
The inequality dog barely has a squeaky little bark and no bite. Next …….
Are you always compelled to say something ignorant, no matter the subject? Even most on the right agree income inequality is a significant issue. Approx. 75% overall see it as a problem…55% calling it a ‘big’ problem. ‘Squeaky little bark and no bite’? What color is the sky in your world?
Recent polls do not support your statement.
Are you always compelled to call names when ever anyone disagrees with you?
I didn’t call you a name, so your attempt at a comeback falls typically short.
He is correct. You did call him a name. Saying someone lacks intellegence by using another word is name calling.
Benician has a point. He did not call JLB a name. His opinion is that JLB’s comments are frequently construed by him to be ignorant in nature. I believe Benician is just being honest in expressing his opinion. Sometimes the truth hurts. Is Benician not allowed to to express his opinion? It’s funny that folks on the right scoff at the idea of political correctness, but then act appalled when someone speaks honestly. The truth of the matter is that most of, not all, the folks on here would probably exercise more self-editing when dealing with folks face to face. But, this is the internet and the names and opinions here are just things that appear on a screen. Personally, none of this extends to the real world that is my everyday life. Although, I assume that there are those that take it a little bit more seriously and extend the activitie here, to other facets of their life. Such as, sitting at the bar and saying things like, ” Can you believe such- and- such’s comment on the Herald?”. Perhaps that is all they have. However, in the end, life goes on no harm no foul.
I’ve been attacked by several of the right-wing puritans on the this blog on more than one occasion. Often, these exchanges stem from these folks just being butt-hurt about an opinion. I’ll have an exchange with one, then comes another out of the blue and decides they should share some personal information they found on me on my FaceBook page, as if it had any relevance (such is the danger of not posting anonymously I guess). Truly it is mostly just hypocritical behavior, as they’ll decry comments made by those they disagree with, but when the dust settles, they’ll just exhibit the same behavior they decried. As I see it, the level of sarcasm, snarky-ness, condescension, ignorance, stoicism, self-righteousness, egomania, etc. is about equal.
I am sure that this comment will draw the ire of certain people and I will be challenged on my “opinions”. However, you can’t force someone into a chess match and then claim victory when that someone refuses to play.
Why is it not OK to say I disagree and here is why rather than wage personal attacks. Benician disagrees with me, that is clear. Does that make me ignorant because I have a differing opinion? If your answer to that is yes, then I would suggest that is ignorant. Benician disagrees with me but I didn’t call her ignorant for having an opposing view; I merely remarked in contrast. You can play all kinds of verbal semantics you want but that does not change the fact that much of the commentary is not civil and as you stated, the words used in many cases would not be used if the conversation was being conducted in person. It is sort of like road rage, you can typically be a real jerk on the road and have total anonymity. Similarly you can be all tough from behind a keyboard with the same veil.
That is not what I’m referring to. Try “JLB – January 30, 2014 at 4:49”
Huh???
What makes you think I’m a ‘her’? Better yet, what makes you think?
Ok I will refer to you as androgynous Pat.
You can attract more bees with honey than you can with vinegar. What is so terrible about being in disagreement and still being polite?
You were the first to reply to this column, and impolite in doing so. Try practicing what you preach a bit more.
Move on Benician.
Incorrect again. All I meant was that it is not a hot topic although some seem to think so. We have bigger problems. Move on. That dog won’t hunt. It was in no way impolite and I didn’t attack anyone in the process, which is more than can be said of you. Understand now why you are getting so much guff?
Nope, I *was* correct. Again. It *is* a hot topic. I provided evidence multiple times to that point. Where’s your evidence that it’s not? None of your ~20 posts here offer any. That’s a lot of babbling while actually saying nothing. Though you whine about lefties with no facts, it’s you who provided none. When one side provides facts and one side doesn’t…who wins? Answer: not you. So, when you’re wrong to begin with…and when you provide no evidence to support your point…and when you’re being flippant at the same time…yeah, that’s impolite. Given these circumstances, your best bet at being polite would have been to say nothing at all though, clearly, this is something you’re seemingly incapable of doing.
OK Pat.
LOL
If it is such a big problem why does Detroit want to bring in immigrants to solve their problem. You know the very smart high tech foreign folks. What is wrong with the local folks from Detroit? Can they be trained to save their own city. Big giovernment at its best. I do not care what party they are from. Flat out stupid. Need an answer on that one. How about spending some momey on our own.
“… poverty scars this rich nation. A recent report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that among thirty-five developed nations, the United States ranks thirty-fourth, with only Romania having a higher child poverty rate. We are also next to last in what UNICEF calls the ‘child poverty gap,’ the gap between the poverty line and the median income of all families below it.” Jeff Bridges, who is national spokesman for Share Our Strength – an “eliminate hunger in children” program has said that, if another country was doing to their children what we do to ours, we would have invaded them long ago. We should be ashamed of ourselves. The fact is that, should anyone actually KNOW, WORK WITH, or INTERACT WITH children or families who struggle with basic issues of hunger and shelter every day, he would KNOW that the “dog is barking” quite loudly. It is a shame that so many of us are deaf.
Agreed but income inequality does not directly equate to poverty. You can attempt to call them the same but they are not.
Of course income inequality doesn’t directly EQUATE to poverty. If I am making 150,000 a year and you are making 75,000 a year, there is income inequality. What inequality does do, however, is stand as a current and major cause of poverty because there is so little room and opportunity to truly move up and out of poverty, due to the top-heavy concentration of wealth which used to be spread more throughout the various strata. To pretend that poverty exists in a vacuum, that the actions of the wealthy and/or comfortable have no bearing on poverty is just plain silly.
there is so little room and opportunity to truly move up and out of poverty,
How many new millionaires were there last year? The number may surprise many.
The problem isn’t getting from half a mil to $1M. It’s getting from $0 to $10K or $10K to $20K. It’s the top of the food chain where are the new wealth is going. Your post misses the point entirely, or is intended to deceive. As usual.
It’s the top of the food chain where are the new wealth is going.
OK.
Hmm, so I drive through Richmond, Oakland, the City, Tenderloin, Hunters Point, and see ZERO evidence of any sort of rampant ‘child poverty’.
What I see is all sorts of flashy new sneakers, every person with a cell phone, and on and on.
My wife works in the medical field with people who’ve come over from Haiti, Africa, Asia, etc.
All of them have seem to have a universal disdain for all the so-called ‘poor’ here in America, for exactly the reasons I noted above.
I’m not quite sure what alternative universe Jerome lives in.
Vallejo is just next door, and one doesn’t need a Mensa membership to see that it was exactly that, Unions and Democratic payback cronyism that resulted in the bankruptcy and meltdown of our neighbor.
The insane quid pro quo between the Unions and Democrats has caused real ‘poverty’ in Vallejo for the benefit of the few, in the form of greedy Union and city workers pensions.
Benicia is much more well off in every way, so we can avoid that, by simply raising everyone’s taxes, right Jerome?
DDL: Million today is not what it was in the past. For every milionaire there are probably 100 poor schlepps just trying to survive. As Warren Buffet would say if “You are lucky enough to be born into the Lucky Sperm Club, or win the ovarian lottery” you can be a profesional and or financially successful. As I noted in a previous post not everyone has entree to social connections, is born with drive, stealth focus, absent mental and physical disbailities, and a high IQ. Sometimes a little good luck and timing in the formula does not hurt either. “The lazy bast..ds should just go out and get a job” is a very callous, ignorant, unrealistic, and apathetic myopic solution to the issues.
Speaking truth to power i.e. ‘tough love.’
From the above article:
“So you’d think Washington would be focused on reducing childhood poverty, mass unemployment, family distress. Instead, Washington has decided to administer a little ‘tough love.’ Congress cut food stamps by 7 percent in November, and in January 1.3 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits.”
More information ( a deeper critique) from political scholar Noam Chomsky in the article below for the community and Mr. Page to consider…
“The refusal to provide very minimal living standards to people who are caught in this monstrosity — that’s just pure savagery,” Chomsky said during an interview with HuffPost Live. “There’s no other word for it.”
“It used to be said years ago that the United States is a one-party state — the business party — with two factions, Democrats and Republicans,” Chomsky said. “That’s no longer true. It’s still a one-party state — the business party — but now it has only one faction. And it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. The so-called New Democrats, who are the dominant force in the Democratic Party, are pretty much what used to be moderate Republicans a couple of decades ago. And the rest of the Republican Party has just drifted off the spectrum.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37330.htm
Beyond the “right wing front”…another critique for the community and Mr. Page to consider.
“But income inequality in the US is no accident. It has conscious, deliberate origins, to be found in the policy initiatives of corporate America since the late 1970s, and the willingness of the politicians Corporate America elects in Congress, Presidents, and at State levels—Democrat and Republican alike—to implement those policy initiatives ”
“There’s the tax restructuring in favor of the rich and their businesses, the free trade and offshoring, the atrophying of the real minimum wage, the dismantling of real pensions and employer contributions to healthcare, the shift from full time permanent jobs to part time and temp work, the destruction of unions and higher paying union jobs, the displacing of higher paid jobs with technology, substitution of credit for lack of wage growth, failure to invest in the US by corporate America, so on and so on.. That’s why jobs, real wages, and incomes for the vast majority of American households has stagnated at best, and declined in real terms for most. That’s why wage earners’ income of the bottom 80% households have contributed to income inequality ”
“Corporate America and their politicians, and the policies they’ve initiated and implemented, are responsible for the accelerating capital incomes of the rich (1%), very rich (0.1%), and mega-rich (0.01%). And much of that has to do with the enabling of financial asset speculation and financial securities inflation that has been the defining characteristic of the US (and global) economy since at least the 1980s. Reagan unlocked that door. Clinton opened it. And George W. kicked it in. And Obama has done nothing to repair the entry.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-and-friends-discover-inequality-by-jack-rasmus.html
Exactly. It took government policy to create the current degree of income inequality. It will take government policy to do something about it.
You may want to ask the wealthy how government helped them. That answer will surprise you. Well maybe not. Please explain what policy you are talking about the government had to create to get to the current degree of income inequality. Very strange words with no answers. Just words.
Please explain what policy you are talking about the government had to create to get to the current degree of income inequality.
Income inequality has increased at a higher rate under 0bummer vs. under George Bush.
Tonight we are going to hear how the guy who increased the gap is now going to help close it. Don’t you love it! The problem is magnified under the control of the Dems, then they blame everyone else and now they want to step in to fix it!
I was reading Milton Friedman last night and came across this little gem (I paraphrase):
‘The problem today is that we have A & B deciding how much should be taken from C to be given to D.’
This whole thing with ‘inequality’ continues to be used as a way to divide the people so as to garner votes.
Tax policy, trade policy, foreign policy, education policy, labor policy, etc., etc., etc. You didn’t know this? Really? No wonder you think Paris Hilton earned her wealth.
Inequality has been created by the stock market in these past five years. The older and middle income if they were not in the market and used interest for growth or income did lose out big time. All created by the government. So as you see now of what you say created wealth but could have created the big difference. Again the government hurt the low income and middle income while all along the stock market made the rich richer. Pretty simple Benician. It was just two words “Stock Market”.
It appears you are directing your comment to me, though the way these posts appear it is not always clear.
But, just to clarify:
I have said nothing about Paris Hilton. Apparently you find her to be of far more interest than I do.
My comment: “Please explain…” was a quote from Bob and not intended as a question to you.
You said the belief that success is random is ‘crap’. Paris Hilton’s success was finding herself in the right uterus. Well deserved!
Read what I said again as you are mistaken.
Dream dream dream
All I have to do is Dream dream dream
That was a great son in it’s day Bob!
son=song
Harvey said: Million today is not what it was in the past.
Did not realize that you were doing so well that you could so glibly write off $1,000,000 per year as nothing of significance.
Congratulations!
I was not born into any high social stratus. My father was a school teacher and my mom stayed at home. I had no special social connections. I do have physical disabilities but I still went to college and got out and got a good job working for a corporation, moved my way up and worked myself into a pretty good income bracket. It’s called hard work. I don’t believe in luck. What some call luck, I describe as preparation intersecting with opportunity. I personally know some people that are on the government dole and have been for years that are perfectly capable of going out and getting a job and earning their own way, but they choose not to. Yes there are plenty of them out there that should just go out and get a job. Callous? Maybe. Reality? Absolutely!
“Government dole -: buzzword for shiftless and lazy. I can’t think of any better examples of someone being on the Government Dole for years and years than the likes of Paul Ryan, who used S.S. and other federal benefits to go through school, who has been in the Congress, with very generous salary, superior benefits (single payer health care and full pension after retirement) and has shepherded exactly 2 bills through the House – one to rename a couple post offices in WI and another to adjust taxes on hunting arrows. He’s been feeding off the government trough for almost 15 years. Or, how about the thousands and thousands of tax avoiders who stash their money in the Caymans? How about the likes of Mitt Romney who was able to deduct show horse expenses? Sorry, but the government dole includes a whole bunch of people who are never included in “perfectly capable of getting a job.”
Your father was an educator and your mother was a by-choice stay-at-home Mom. Oh, the hardship! Did you also live in a decent community? Did you get three square meals a day? Were you in an environment conducive to studying? A desk? A bright lamp? Are you aware of how many millions of children there are for whom that’s a pipe dream?
Just how many millions are you talking about? Just where do the millins live. What brought them to this stage in their life. All JLB was doing was giving you a brief on his story. Life is filled with pipe dreams. Those pipe dreams many times become reality.
JLB — Notice how quickly the attack dogs come out to make this about you?
Seems to me he made it “about him” to begin with.
Clearly. Well, maybe not so clearly to someone.
It’s called Selective Exposure Theory.
Who would that someone be?
Correction to the above:
JLB — Notice how quickly the attack dogs come out to make their attacks about you?
How do Benician’s questions qualify as “attacks”?
All I was trying to show at least one example that of someone that does not fit the mold as descried by the OP. Not about me at all. I am just an average guy of meager upbringing that didn’t let that hold me back and I didn’t have a lot of help along the way. I paid my own way through college and worked while doing so. The reason they go on the attack is because it is just does not seem to be in their moral fabric to just be nice and that is all they’ve got.
Good answer JLB.
All you did is prove you have no idea how lucky you were to grow up in an environment where you had a real opportunity to succeed, totally oblivious to an underclass you have no idea exists.
You know nothing about me so how is it that you can reference my mind set, my awareness or my feelings about my circumstances or what I know or don’t know. Better to be thought of as a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
JLB, What was it Dick Gephardt said: something about those who have won life’s lottery are obligated to share their good fortune?
Too many people have had this crap drilled into them for so long that they truly believe that success is random chance or they are born into it.
Tell us of how Paris Hilton ‘earned’ her wealth.
Why?
We all know something about you as you’ve chosen to tell us of your ‘rags to riches’ story multiple times. We also know a bit about what you do or don’t know by your suggestion as to how ‘rough’ you had it growing up. That’s a wonderful quote you added at the end (too bad you didn’t give credit to the author instead of inferring they’re your own words). Considering the content of the majority of your posts, it’s a shame you never seem to take the words to heart.
Again you are completely wrong. I did not espouse to neither rags or riches associated with my story. I never said I had it rough growing up. Wrong, wrong wrong. You must have a reading comprehension problem. The concept of me inferring that quote was mine is beyond idiotic. Everyone has heard that quote and would automatically know that it was not mine. Yet again you are wrong. I just thought it fill well for you. You continuance confirms that I was correct in using it in reference to you.
It must be a real bear to have to walk around with so much anger and hatred inside you waiting for an opportunity to spew. Sad! I hope you are able to find some peace in your life at some point because based on your commentaries there is no evidence of it in your life now. Now try to smile and have a nice day.
If you weren’t suggesting you had it tough, then your ‘rags to riches’ post made no point. Not unlike most of your posts. As to my ‘anger’, etc., you know even less about me than I know about you, so you’re being hypocritical to make such an implication. Far from it, I have no ‘anger’, ‘hatred’, or anything similar you want to pin on me. I enjoy my life greatly, even more so when your nonsensical posts provoke laughter. BTW, why don’t you scroll up and look at the first reply on this thread. Or, let me save you the trouble:
“The inequality dog barely has a squeaky little bark and no bite. Next …….” Maybe you need to find some peace and happiness in your life before flippantly blowing off a well-written, provocative column with a, once again, pointless reply.
Benician you just confirmed your hate and anger because of who you point it to. It is always so called folks that do not agree with you. Namely Conservatives. No need to shy away from your feelings.
She can’t help herself.
It’s just typical of the left. They are not satisfied by expressing that they disagree and provide a countering argument. Instead, because they have no facts that support their assertions and the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear that their policies don’t work that all they are left with is hatred and lies.
Income inequality should not be the concern, low income for the poor is the problem. The two issues are completely disconnected.
The poor do better in a growing economy. As unemployment rates diminish, the unemployed become more valuable thus driving up wages. We should concentrate on growing the economy through proven free market, capitalistic , measures. And this specifically should not include taxing and regulating capital. Let capital flow and free to invest and the poor will do better.
Punishing wealth via taxation only benefits government. As we raise taxes and increase regulations, government thrives and the poor get screwed.
Witness the last five years … 7 out of 10 richest counties in the country surround Washington DC. All the while the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Liberals need to learn this basic lesson: raising taxes on the rich benefits government. But government does not help the poor. History proves that government keeps the revenue and it does not help the poor.
Not to mention that average government workers used to make less than the average workers in the private section. My how that has changed.
This may explain the lack of empathy from the right:
“My personal Fox News nightmare: Inside a month of self-induced torture”:
From the article: “But now I was aware of Fox’s role as a purveyor, not only of right-wing information but of right-wing ignorance, and I began to examine my mind for things that I hadn’t gotten any information about in the past month. The most notable items that were missing, I realized, were people from other countries and poverty.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/28/my_personal_fox_news_nightmare_inside_a_month_of_self_induced_torture/
JLB
It’s just typical of the left. They are not satisfied by expressing that they disagree and provide a countering argument. Instead, because they have no facts that support their assertions and the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear that their policies don’t work that all they are left with is hatred and lies.
I seldom respond to comments of this nature. However, this particular statement is so egregiously insulting and so completely at variance with any reality that can be drawn from anything that I have written that I think it requires attention. It is quite a remarkable example of precisely what JLB attempts to project upon others.
Jerome,
I do not speak for JLB, but it would appear that his rather tepid response was not directed at you as the author, but more specifically at the handful of leftist posters whose invective filled comments make a daily appearance on this board.
Jerome; I do agree with Dennis. I understand what JLB is talking about. To me it appears it is OK for the left it nake very hateful and personal comments to someone that they do not agree with. Jerry I would hope you would make a comment about the folks that attack the likes of me, Matter, Dennis and JLB. I assume you read their commentsd. They provoke comments back to them. I hope now you will understand how the folks from the other side feel. Jerry we can take it and need no help from anyone. I hope Jerry you are not defending these few that comment as they do. Waiting for your comment. I do not alweays agree with you Jerry but when provoked by the local Liberals I am very capable of doing the same thing and feerl no worsae for wear by doing it. Justy watch thesaer local leftist when I, Dennis, Matter and JLB comment. They cannot wait to go personal, name calling and some very hatful comments. Jerry I am sueerprised att yoyur comment.
JLB flippantly blew off the column. He then…in YOUR words…made it about himself with a tale he later admitted had nothing to do with the substance of the column. He made personal attacks. And, finally, he suggested the left has no facts (not true) while a summation of his 11 posts in this thread finds all of ONE fact provided (aside from his self-serving ‘rags to riches’ tale)…a fact that had virtually nothing to do with the subject. So, once again, Jerome is spot on.
The first personal attack on this thread was by you, not JLB.
As usual your comments are more than a Tad off base.
EP challenged you to point out a personal attack on JLB, which you failed to do. Probably because there was none. We’re still waiting.
“Are you always compelled to say something ignorant, no matter the subject?”
Sound familiar?
I also commented on that statement by Benician.
I didn’t call him ‘ignorant’, I called what he said ‘ignorant’. Big difference. And, well-deserved.
So if I stated:
“Barrack Obama’s State of the Union address included some of the most ignorant statements to ever come out of the mouth of a sitting President”
You would be OK with that as not being a “personal attack”
verry good Dennis. You got her on defensive.
Bob,
They probably will correct me for saying he was a “sitting” President, when actually he was standing at the time he made the comments.
😉
Exactly what do I ‘deserve’? I will be a gentlemen and not hit that softball out of the park.
witness a recent thread in re the minimum wage.
Glad you brought that up as I was about to go back to that thread an post this:
Health care call center lawsuit alleges unpaid OT
Looks like your Democrat Gods and Goddesses, whom you so slavishly adore, are screwing the poor down trodden masses who are trying to help to implement the biggest scam ever imposed on the people by the lying two faced President that you love.
Another diversion. Point proven. Thank you, very much.
I might vehemently question your judgment and, depending on what, in particular, but I wouldn’t accuse you of making a personal attack. For all I’ve found dishonest or willfully ignorant in your posts, I’ve never accused you of a personal attack, have I?
Fat-fingered on my smartphone. Scratch ‘depending on what, in particular’.
I’ve never accused you of a personal attack, have I?
You have certainly made many personal attacks against me though haven’t you (such as in the above post)?
I’ve called you out when you’ve been hypocritical, misleading, purposely dishonest or willfully ignorant. Take the last two as a compliment, as I’m giving you credit for knowing more than you let on. You seem to live in the Faux bubble…where such traits are accepted and never challenged. Don’t come on here and throw around your b.s. and not expect to be called out on it. And, when you are, accept it or go somewhere else. You’ve thrown plenty of snark, insults and attacks my way, often to divert attention from salient points I’ve made. Fine. I don’t mind. I can take it. Apparently, you can’t.
You’ve thrown plenty of snark, insults and attacks my way,
I have been far kinder to you then you deserve. And I do not recall mine ever throwing out the first insult, where as you do so on a constant basis.
Like ‘White-hat’ said in the classic movie; Treasure of the Sierra Madre’: Kindly go to someone else, it get’s tiresome”
Exactly what do I ‘deserve’? For the offense of calling you out on your b.s.? I argue honestly. When I feel you’re being hypocritical, dishonest, etc., I make the point. When I’m right, you pick out some meaningless, trivial phrase and divert the conversation. We get it. It’s how you roll.
You go off at the slightest suggestion of disagreement…witness a recent thread in re the minimum wage. You said there won’t be a vote this year because it’s too close to election season. I responded that, as a minimum wage hike is very popular with the public, it would be in the GOP’s best interest to vote on it this year. One sentence. That’s it. No reference to you. No criticisms. Just a disagreement. You replied…somewhat agreeing with me…but then took the opportunity to go off on the Democrats. That’s how you roll. Again…we get it.
Find it tiresome? Tough. You know where the door is.
often to divert attention from salient points I’ve made.
I must have missed that almost solitary occurrence. Would you mind reminding me of one of those few cases?
There are many things you miss. Obviously.
Benician,
I tried ignoring you for some time, but you still feel compelled to respond to everything I post (not that I feel special) But you feel compelled to respond to everything I post, and usually do so in an insulting and condescending manner, which typifies the general self-proclaimed attitude of superiority which prevails from the left.
I want to respectfully go on record with a request that you cease and desist from responding directly to me on any thread that I post.
Thank you
Regards
DDL
First, I don’t respond to many replies you post. A cursory glance at any column posted at the Herald proves this to be true. And, as the guy who’s #3 on the posting charts (and making a strong push for #2), perhaps you’re best served finding another line of attack.
Second, this forum needs a watchdog to rebut the misinformation you provide. Nice try though…as you’re trying to create an environment where, like Whigs on Faux, your lies/distortions/hypocrisy goes unchallenged. Sorry, no deal. You’re welcome, Benicians.
BTW, just so I’m clear…I know I go after you more than I do others. The reason: unlike most of the others, I think you know better. When you go after Dems for ‘crimes’ more often and more blatantly executed by Whigs, you’re being dishonest and insulting to anyone who reads your posts. Stop such posts and you won’t hear a peep from me.
Benician,
Yesterday you posted this:
Hope you have better luck with Livesay than I did. I’ve been ignoring him for months, but he still feels compelled to respond to everything I post (not that I feel special…he feels compelled to respond to everything anyone posts), despite a respectful request that he not.
So in addition to your being: obnoxiously rude, arrogant, condescending and now the self appointed savior of benicians from info they do not like to hear, we can now add “hypocrite’ to the long list of adjectives that properly classify you in the category of “people of your ilk”.
You incorrectly assume yourself to be the determiner of all truths. If it does not fit into your preconceived and misinformed frame of mind, then the person holding those opinions has to be a liar or worse.
You have asked Bob to not post to you and condemned him for not honoring your request. Yet you will not honor the same request made of you. Thus hypocrite is appropriate.
Not a big difference. You are saying he lackedf knowledge or intelligence. Sorry Benician you can not get out of this one. It was for sure name calling.
The whining about name calling and “incivility” is itself a debate tactic, albeit a pathetic and embarrassing one, honed to perfection by rightists determined to take umbrage at whatever the political opposition says no matter how much sense it makes. Thus the right runs further and further from reality.
Thought that sounded familiar:
“I note you do not offer a response or a reasonable explanation as to why this results have occurred, instead you blame others without a serious analysis of alternative explanations.
It is always easy to demonize the opposition, rather than to look at causations of a repeated pattern.
Crying ‘gerrymandering’ by Demoncrats is laughable, as that is an art honed to perfection by Dems.” DDL Feb. 2013
Are you saying Hank Harrison and DDL are the same person? I’m afraid you’re headed down a dead end.
Correct!
Sorry for the typos. You got the picture very clearly.
I find it hard to understand the Paris Hilton comment by Benician. I have had some expierence with Benician and I must day she can get very nasty and personal.. Guess what when that happens it will come right back at her/him. Mosty do not mind some scarcasm once in a while put posting streets and family names seems to be a little much. That part of the comment section is not necessary. I have not seen Benician follow that road but she does get very personal in her comments and it brings out her anger. I do not mind that but to have the writer take a thin skinned approach is a little much. I believe the folks that comment can settle their differences and after a while it gets tiresome and will stop and move on to the next topic. Trying to change folks comment habits is very difficult. Maybe we should just learn to live with them or better yet do not comment back. That stops it at once. Let them look for a fight in the mirror. No one wins either way. But it is fun.
And, this is what I mean as far as being hypocritical:
“put [sic] posting streets and family names seems to be a little much.”
How is it then you take it on yourself to post someone’s educational experience (as well as belittle it) out of the blue? I don’t know if you know it or not, but identity theft is a real threat. No sarcasm intended.
I just followed your reasoning. Sarcasm is your answer to many posts. Remember Thomas you started it a long time ago and I caught you. We can stop when ever you want. I take no pleasure in being sarcastic.
Bob,
Wasn’t it Petersen/EP that challenged you to come down to where he works for a fight? Even stated the name of where he works at, in case you did not have it.
Seems to me that someone who does that has lost any claim to desiring privacy.
You are correrct Dennis. But remember who you are talking about.
Bob, I thought you of all people, were opposed to lying.
Bob, I seem to recall that as well, but it was some time ago.
JLB – The best you are doing is confirming that there are at least three people on here with poor memories and/or easily misinterpret words. As well as the propensity to participate it what amounts to slander.
I reread the post in question. Petersen did indeed invite Bob to his place of business and provided the address. The purpose of the invitation was to discuss differences between the two of them.
The exchange was not friendly, but phrasing it as a “challenge to fight” is an overstatement.
You are a gentleman for admitting this.
Bob Livesay 3
Peterson 0
Bottom of the ninth.
Lunde, shall we continue? I notice that you did not respond to my earlier comment.
DDL presents a perfect example of what I stated before and respond in the form of a bold face lie.
“Often, these exchanges stem from these folks just being butt-hurt about an opinion.”
Maybe you can dig up the exact quote, DDL, to support your ridiculous accusation.
Maybe you can dig up the exact quote, DDL, to support your ridiculous accusation.
The moderator had the good taste to remove the post shortly after it was posted, but you knew that didn’t you?
I remember this quite well, as the owner of the business you were employed at was a neighbor of mine for many years. It struck me as odd that a person would expose himself in that manner.
I am not going to be specific, but both Bob and I recall the challenge. Best to let this one fade away Thomas.
You are actually going to try to defend your lie? Or, are you just being purposely obtuse? No the comment was not removed. And actually, I invited Bob to come to my office to continue the conversation we were having. And, you know what? He never did. I suppose, by your logic, that when Bob routinely suggests that certain opposing parties get together locally, it’s for a rumble? Interesting.
“I remember this quite well, as the owner of the business you were employed at was a neighbor of mine for many years.” Yes, I see, you are trying to lead me around by my nose. DDL, I’ve never been employed by anyone that has lived or owned a company in Benicia.
Yes, I see, you are trying to lead me around by my nose by making ridiculous comments. Yet again, hypocrisy. “as they’ll decry comments made by those they disagree with, but when the dust settles, they’ll just exhibit the same behavior”
Also, “I am finished with people of your ilk.” – DDL, January 28, 2014 at 6:45
“Seems to me that someone who does that has lost any claim to desiring privacy.” DDL, did you just make that rule up?
“We can stop when ever you want.” That’s not actually the case Bob, as you are the one that always chooses to take it further. It is usually unwarranted as well. Again, you would be a liar if you were to suggest that it is not you that starts out 9 out of 10 of the exchanges between you and I.
“Thomas you started it a long time ago”. Actually, the way I remember it I was attacked by you the very first time I posted on a local blog (The Patch), and thing have not changed. Regardless, the incident you are referring to, what was that three years ago? I think I apologized to you in person, as I recall. Subsequently, I bought you lunch. For which in turn I got, not a thank you, but a sarcastic remark about tipping. How long do you hold a grudge? You be sure to let me know when you want to stop?
Thomas it should have stopped long ago. It is time to stop and show respect for each other and the other folks that comment. Our issues have nothing to do with these comment runs. Time for us to stop Thomas.
I agree Bob. However, I believe that it would be far better to completely ignore each others comments as long as they are not directed at each other. Because, like I said early on, there no way to control the propensity for folks to lash out at the opinions of other folk’s on here when they find them disagreeable. And, If I get lashed out at, or am subject to someone’s snark, I will surely not ignore it.
And, If I get lashed out at, or am subject to someone’s snark, I will surely not ignore it.
Do you expect anything less from others?
Do you?
I will offer you the following, tit for tat.
I will refrain from snarkism and insults directed at you, as long as you do the same.
Deal?
to be clear and not nitpicking: “as long as you do the same” means directed at me, by you, under any guise you use.
I’ll offer you the same as I did to Bob. You ignore my comments and I will ignore yours, entirely. It will be easy for me. I am still entitled to closure on an issue. But, I will handle that via other avenues.
Hope you have better luck with Livesay than I did. I’ve been ignoring him for months, but he still feels compelled to respond to everything I post (not that I feel special…he feels compelled to respond to everything anyone posts), despite a respectful request that he not.
Not clear as to what you mean by “under any guise you use”.
Not clear as to what you mean by “under any guise you use”.
You post under ‘environmentalpro’ and ‘Thomaspetersen’ both show the ‘pic/icon’ of a person playing a guitar, not an issue, both are you and that is recognized. But I did notice a post tonight under ‘environmentalpro’ w/o the pic of the guitar player. No issue there, but that is what I was referring to as being a ‘guise’.
Fair enough. I might also have one more condition. But, it will have to wait. It should be clear to you by tomorrow, I’m sure.
EP/Petersen stated: “I’ll offer you the same as I did to Bob. You ignore my comments and I will ignore yours, entirely.”
Accepted. With this exception: you said yesterday you have an issue which needs closure. I retain that my response to that issue is exempted. Otherwise, no comments from you nor none from me directed to each other.
“I retain that my response to that issue is exempted.”
I really don’t think I can agree to that. And, I’m sure you can understand the reason for this.
I really don’t think I can agree to that. And, I’m sure you can understand the reason for this.
You have not identified the issue you feel you need closure on, so there is no way I can understand your reasoning.
You should check with the editor. Your response, “I retain that my response to that issue is exempted”, seemed to indicate that you knew what I was talking about.
The one thing I have noticed about the liberal comment folks is they get very edgy when things are not going well with the Liberals. At present there is no more than 3/5 folks that get all caught up in what a Conservative says. There is one liberal person that comments and does not get caight up in all the fuss. Sure we may not agree but I do not see the nasty comments from that person. Why should any Conservative have to take any of that from a Liberal. I sure will not. Opposing comments laced with nasty remarks are common with a couple of the Liberal folks we see all the time. When that happens it is coming right back at them. Nothing is gained and the comments are no longer productive. We all should be able to comment and not have to be attacked for our political beliefs.
Benician I go back to the Patch with you. You did take the right road to not comment back to me. I will not take that road. I have a long memory about you and will not soon forget it. It will take a full blown apology from you to keep me out of your hair. When that happens you are history with me. Until then I will come at you. I do not like saying this in a comment run but I clearly remember your comments. I like what is happening on this run. The folks are now making peace and understand that some of the comments and words are not productive. It has taken a long time, but it did happen. You may want to join the group. The only difference between any of us is our political ideals. I believe all the folks that comment are very decent people until proven other wise. Thanks tyo all the folks that commemnt. Job well done.
Bob do you believe in evolution?
Do you Hank?
I’ve got nothing to apologize for. Reply to me all you want. You’ll continue to be ignored by me and mocked by others.
If I made a comment to you that was not appropriate I will apologize. I am not above that. I will continue to comment back to you in a civil manor. Feel free to do the same.
Sorry Bob but I don’t think she is capable. I think, in reality she is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Why she picked Benicia to pick on I have no idea!
It seems that very few of the comments actually have much to do with the topic of the article. I stand by my original point. Income inequality is not a priority issue on the minds of Americans. You can call me ignorant all you want for having a differing opinion but we have much bigger fish to fry. The government can’t legislate out income inequality. If anything they contribute to it. The way to reduce it is to create policies to grow the economy, which the Obama administration and his minions have no intention of doing. If Obama chooses to stand on this issue for the next two years, it will be a flop. Mark my words.
Wrong on all counts. Income inequality *is* a priority issue for most Americans (evidence: http://www.policymic.com/articles/80399/do-americans-actually-care-about-income-inequality-hell-yeah-they-do). Government policy created the inequality and government policy can pull it back. Obama’s attempts to grow the economy have been thwarted at every turn by an obstructionist Whig party that agreed the day he was inaugurated to deny him any political wins…even if it meant changing their already declared positions. This, at a time when the country was suffering from its worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. How Patriotic!
What bills have the Whig-led House passed? Nothing but repeals of Obamacare (which grows the economy, per CBO) and abortion bills. They want the economy to fail for political gain. Again, how Patriotic!
Well we are more than happy to let you live in your little fantasy world. Enjoy!
You complain about fact-free lefties. I provided facts. You didn’t. Beginning to understand why you get guff?
“It seems that very few of the comments actually have much to do with the topic of the article.” – Yet, you felt compelled to take that selfsame course.
I did participate but didn’t start it. That is why I attempted to bring it back, only to receive the usual attacks, having nothing to do with the topic. Well done EP.
After your unsolicited insinuations concerning my character, well done indeed. Not usually you’re style JLB, I was surprised. Not something to take lightly. I guess we differ on that.
What attacks? You’re really thin-skinned, aren’t you?
The Beat Goes On
One would be hard-pressed, when citing economic theorists, to surpass the intellect of James Taylor…not with-standing Paul Krugman’s distinction garnered by the same institution which awarded Yasser Arafat and Al Gore the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’.
I remain comforted by Jerome’s steadfast contention that all things evil are of Republican inclination.
Steve Harley said: One would be hard-pressed, when citing economic theorists, to surpass the intellect of James Taylor…
Let us also not forget the tremendous help Mr. Taylor played in healing the wounds after the terrorist attack in France, when John Kerry instinctively knew that Mr. Taylor’s song; “You’ve Got a Friend”, would serve as the perfect bridge to give assurances to the French people of the commitment of the U.S. to stand with them, as soon as the playoffs were over.
Perhaps Mr. Taylor could provide a similar service to the Republicans by dedicating; (I’ve Seen) Fire and Rain, to them.