Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, October 22, 2016

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Glenn Beck

As the Ebola virus sent the far right into hysterics, one This Week In Crazy regular remained remarkably calm: Glenn Beck.

On Friday, that all went out the window.

After lamenting that the government’s incompetent response to Ebola is “literally going to be the death of all of us,” Beck launched into a shouting fit about how President Obama is holding his “chin up like Mussolini” instead of admitting his faults.

“I haven’t seen anyone in Washington say ‘Hey, you know what? I was wrong about ISIS,'” Beck raged. “‘You know what? I was wrong about Benghazi. You know what? I was wrong about the caliphate. Oh, you know what? It seems I was wrong about the economy. Oh, I was wrong about health care. Oh, I seem to have been wrong!'”

I’m sure that President Obama would lower his chin to a non-Mussolini level just as soon as Beck admits that he seems to have been wrong about society’s imminent collapse.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Independent1

    Wow! We really have some doozies this week. I sure won’t try to delve into them all but Douglas MacKinnon better do some homework before he goes forward with that idiot idea of having the southern states secede from the union – they suck welfare dollars of all sorts so hard from Washington, virtually all of them getting over $1.50 in Federal aid for every dollar they send to Washington in taxes (and many of them over $2/$1 of tax money) – that they’d fall into bankruptcy so fast after a secession that you wouldn’t have time to grab the rope before they sunk out of sight. And I guess I’m not surprised that he was an administrative aid to America’s worst president ever; his dumbness may explain why Ronnie was so clueless himself.

    And Glenn Beck’s stupidity is so profound that it’s difficult really to respond to such idiocy has he spews so profusely. But before he keeps talking about “Oh I was wrong about health care” he should check with the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer: See Arizona expanded Medicaid and is saving millions in reduced hospital reimbursement costs, and projections have been made that Arizona’s expanded health care may result in creating 15,000 new jobs by 2016, and the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare by boost the Arizona economy by 1.6 billion in the next 3 years. So Jan Brewer, A republican may not agree with Beck’s idiot comment about health care.

    See these excerpts from a Daily Kos article:

    Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision to harangue her Republican legislature to accept Medicaid expansion is paying off for the whole state of Arizona, but especially its hospitals. A new report from the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association says that uncompensated care has been reduced 31 percent in the last four months compared to the same period last year.

    That’s money that the state doesn’t have to try to come up with to reimburse hospitals to help keep them afloat. The business school at Arizona State University estimated that the expansion would bring more than 15,000 jobs to the state by 2016, increase state revenues by over $2.8 billion in the next three years and increase personal disposable income by more than $1.6 billion. The decline in uncompensated care is just a drop in the bucket for what Medicaid expansion is likely to do for Arizona.

    • charleo1

      Great Post! And by the way, has Beck ever offered a mea culpa, as in ever? After his prognostications of the soon coming dooms day? The stock market collapse? The collapse of the dollar, and the coming post apocalyptic, barter system? While he sold his loyal listeners bunker supplies, and investments in gold, at prices that at the current rate of increases, would take them 30 years to break even!

  • FT66

    Oh! ya, that is KG (Kimberly Guilfoyle) another bad apple from Fox News attacking young women. Why can’t she listen to some clever republicans who appeal to fellow republicans to say good stuff in order to attract voters? With such kind of talk, she is chasing women away to vote for her Party and they will vote against them, that am sure of.

    • The_Magic_M

      I wonder if this is all a projection of some utter self-hate (similar to how Erik Rush and Mychal Massie write anti-black stuff like the editor of Stormfront).
      Maybe she hates her sexuality or her age (feeling much more mature than her years but being treated like a young bimbo may cause this).

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        As a woman, Guilfoyle is what is known to politically savvy women as a political “Come Get Me Girl.” These are the women with blue plate specials they hope to offer the GOP bulls, ever salivating for an opportunity to prove how well their Viagra works for them.

        • stcroixcarp

          Eleanore, you are so naughty!

          • FT66

            Really! I hope Eleanore has stated the truth, according to my opinion.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            The dirty little secret of a woman like Guilfoyle is that while she’s busy bashing her own gender, she’s playing a game with the bulls of the GOP and they are too naive to even know it.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            So my confessor, Father Jake has told me….Truth is naughty…sometimes. Women who seek to reduce women to chattel always have a closet “business” out there on the “range.” As ZZ top would tell us..rofl.

          • plc97477

            But probably correct.

  • Dominick Vila

    On a more positive note, all the trolls that posted on The National Memo during the past several months are conspicuous by their absence. Could it be that they all got marching orders from the RNC to project a semblance of moderation and pragmatism where only hatred exists?

    • FT66

      Dominick, if anyone writes something on The National Memo and go over the line, is kicked out rightaway. They really want serious people to make genuine discussions proceed. Thats what its meant for. NOT coming here to this thread and spit out all venom one has inside. One can criticise yes BUT there is a limit of doing so. Such type of people who always go over the line are no longer welcomed.

      • Dominick Vila

        I believe freedom of speech is one of our greatest rights, but as you pointed out, there is a difference between being free to voice opinions different from ours, and making threats or insulting those whose values and aspirations are different than theirs. BTW, that goes both ways…

    • BillP

      Dominick I hope you are right but in the recent past Joe Schmuck posted that God was angry so the Ebola virus appeared. He then went on to show his homophobia by claiming that Aids was another angry message from God. I don’t know if Schmuck said God was talking with him directly or that he was just divining these messages.

      • Dominick Vila

        Prominent Americans have made similar comments, including “Reverend” Pat Robertson who referred to the victims of the hurricane that devastated Haiti and killed hundreds of people as heathens who deserved what they got.
        Incredibly, people continue to listen to morons like him and donate money to his church.

      • Allan Richardson

        Would these idiots be saying “close the border to air traffic” with Ebola stricken countries if those countries were in WHITE Europe rather than BLACK Africa? No travel allowed to France, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland? Not Switzerland! How would these guys do their BANKING?

  • The_Magic_M

    Douglas MacKinnon: revisionism at its best (worst).

    While I bet he is “not a scientist”, he is a Constitutional scholar (who’s just the only Constitutional scholar who claims secession is legal*) and also an honorary PhD in Conservative Alt-History where the Good South was forced to stay in the Usurped Sewers of Angst by the Villainous North, where the latter ended up freeing all the slaves against their will and their benefit.

    * “In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional…” (Wikipedia) Then again, we might just “Let Them Go”. 😉

    • Allan Richardson

      LET them go? Some days I would say Washington should KICK them out! The only problem is, millions of sensible progressives, and I, LIVE IN one of those secessionist states.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    I don’t know who the GOP bulls think they are playing their skanky scripts to but their audience are located mainly in red-turning-blue states.

    If the comments made on Facebook about the GOP are any barometer of the anger of Middle Class Americans, the GOP is either blindfolded or wears earplugs.

    Pushing an austerity agenda for more than a dozen years never lasts. People get fed up working and all for what? To keep the rich fat, lazy and happy?

    It doesn’t take too much smarts to figure out just why it is our tax dollars end up paying off Big Businesses to locate in specific states and then hand them more tax cuts, all while they whine about high corporate taxes.

    Trough feeding free loaders never seem themselves as they are. It’s up to the rest of us to stop over engorging them.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    PhD…Piled High and Deep? MacKinnon is a son of the old south who holds onto The South Shall Rise Again Confederate fantasy.

    All the rest of the states would have to do is gut Big Oil and there goes 90% of TX state revenue. Trough feeding isn’t Constitutional either. But, for most red states, pushing all of the other states to work longer, harder and for less is their idea of a return to the cool sweet breezes on the antebellum verandas while the slaves have at all the dirty work.

  • FireBaron

    If Kimberly Guilfoyle believes women “just don’t get it”, then maybe she should resign and go back to the kitchen. After all, she is a woman, so she obviously doesn’t get it.

    • FT66

      I do not understand why Fox News employ such people like her. She has a very bad scratchy voice and to me she seems not to be intellectual. Just only competing with Sean Hannity and see who emerges as a person full of nonsense. I do not know why Fox News don’t employ people like that guy who was once found living on streets BUT had a very remarkable attractive voice to listen to.

      • johninPCFL

        Hannity got his “training” as a morning radio shock jock. He hasn’t changed much.

        • Duckbudder

          Thought that was Beck?

  • adler56

    MacKinnon wants three taker states to form a new nation? Great- three deadbeat states less and way less rednecks in America- take Alabama and Arkansas too.

    • johninPCFL

      Meh, FL is about break even. The largest taker states are up along the Mississippi. MO takes about $1.90 for each $1 contributed in taxes.
      But his “history” about the south being he economic might that he north wanted to keep ignores how the south was beaten. They couldn’t compete with the north in buying the necessary implements of war, ergo their economy was smaller and weaker.

  • Prof_Cochise

    When I posted a previous comment from you about “the dumbest member of Congress” I got a reply from …. someone… that listed all of Gohmert’s academic achievements. Maybe he isn’t dumb, just a lunatic?

    • Allan Richardson

      He’s PAID to be a lunatic, just as Carroll O’Connor was paid to read lines written for Archie Bunker. The difference is, Archie was in a TV sitcom making us laugh, not in a position to control how our country is being run.

  • brucekennedy

    To say Louie Gomert went crazy, is redundant. Gomert is synonymous with crazy.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Louie Louie and Beck may be in a class by themselves for consistency of lunacy.

  • jakenhyde

    What was Ailes thinking when he hired a brunette?

    • holyreality

      Drapes match the rug?

  • ChristoD

    Beck is a certifiable blithering idiot who has blithering idiots as listeners. Fear, fear and more fear. Sickening.

    • Charles Winter

      Beck is right that many in the media have failed to admit they’re wrong about the economy and healthcare. One of the worst offenders in this is . . . Glenn Beck

  • Melinda Killie

    Come ON, Folks! Ya GOTTA laugh at these republican/tea party clown idiots…. They are SOO damned desperate and KNOW they are in BIG trouble for all of the bullcrap they have shoveled out (and that backlashed in their OWN faces), that they aren’t gonna stop now. Get a BIG bag of popcorn, your favorite drink, sit back and enjoy the repub/tea party clown show! They are gonna say and do ALL kinds of off the wall, nutty things but they can’t stop the fact that people have stopped listening to them and taking them seriously. Only their OWN minority party takes ANYTHING they say seriously anymore.. LOLOLOLOL!

  • ExRadioGuy15

    Wait a minute: “Gohmert goes crazy”?
    The ship sailed a long time ago…there’s a good reason that I correctly call him “Looney Louie” Gohmert.
    But, as usual, TWIC further proves that one of the 10 GOP Tenets is insanity.

  • tdm3624

    Mr. MacKinnon, what would your response be if a majority of people in New Mexico or Texas decided that they had more cultural ties to Mexico and decided to become a Mexican state? Would you support it then?

    • holyreality

      A Texican is 6/7ths Mexican after all.

  • MaryNOLA

    So this guy clearly doesn’t understand how SCOTUS works. Not accepting a case doesn’t mean they haven’t made up their minds. It means they stand behind the previous ruling.

  • ericlipps

    I say, let ’em go, and see how soon it is (months, I bet) before people are streaming across the Rio Grande . . . southward into Mexico. And not just Spanish-speakers, either.

    The idea that Confederate secession was opposed because the North realized “t could not survive without the power of the South.” It did a pretty good job during the war. If anything, except for oil, the South has been more burden than blessing these past 150 years.

    • idamag

      Absolutely. Since most of the taker states – those who get more from the government – are southern states, it would be nice if they did secede and we pulled all the Federal jobs out of those states.

  • dtgraham

    What can I say? Yet again I’m in awe (and shock) and bow reverently before His Highness Louie I. The King of Crazy, the Duke of Delusional, the Baron of Batshit, and the Lord of the Idiots. The man who has declared a state of perpetual war on the English language—–and is winning.

    We gather once again at this week in crazy and honor you your Worship. All hail Louie I.

  • exdemo55

    This week in the Crazy Left:

    President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.

    The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.

    Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

    The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sheryl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documents showing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010. The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.

    This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.

    The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.” Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.

    • Grannysmovin

      Link please to supporting documents.

      • exdemo55

        Seasoned CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson reveals how she has been electronically surveilled while digging deep into the Obama Administration and its scandals, and offers an incisive critique of her industry and the shrinking role of investigative journalism in today’s media.

        Americans are at the mercy of powerful figures in business and government who are virtually unaccountable. The Obama Administration in particular has broken new ground in its monitoring of journalists, intimidation and harassment of opposition groups, and surveillance of private citizens.

        Sharyl Attkisson has been a journalist for more than thirty years. During that time she has exposed scandals and covered controversies under both Republican and Democratic administrations. She has also seen the opponents of transparency go to ever greater lengths to discourage and obstruct legitimate reporting.

        Attkisson herself has been subjected to “opposition research” efforts and spin campaigns. These tactics increased their intensity as she relentlessly pursued stories that the Obama Administration dismissed. Stonewalled is the story of how her news reports were met with a barrage of PR warfare tactics, including online criticism, as well as emails and phone calls up the network chain of command in an effort to intimidate and discourage the next story. In Stonewalled, Attkisson recounts her personal tale, setting it against the larger story of the decline of investigative journalism and unbiased truth telling in America today.

        • Grannysmovin

          What you given me is that you are a fan of Ms. Attkisson, who left CBS because they were too liberal as opposed to Fox News that is not too conservative. This story appears on a Daily Signal blog (conservative) Patheos Blog (Religious Conservative) and the Washington Post (Conservative). None of the provide the detail you have provided so again where did you get your information? Are there no non-partisan publications you can direct as a source>

          • exdemo55

            Check the facts, don’t shoot the messenger.

          • Grannysmovin

            I am no shooting the messenger, but where are the facts. I have looked it up and as I stated the only place I found the story was 2 conservative blogs and 1 very conservative paper. None had the information you provided. I thank you for a respectful discussion,

          • exdemo55

            You’re not looking hard enough

  • exdemo55

    More crazy Lefties”

    The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now.

    While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet.

    • Grannysmovin

      Link please or documents that support your post.

      • exdemo55

        America is so over Obama. In 2008, the media and a majority of the voters were head-over-heels in love with the man who told them that “yes, we can” overcome war and recession.

        By 2012, the amour had cooled but they were willing to give four more years to the guy who was – if nothing else – way hotter than Mitt Romney.

        But now it’s 2014 and the passion is totally gone. Obama is the withholding boyfriend who knows that he’s probably on the way out and is just sending the odd friendly text message from the golf course. If this relationship-breakdown metaphor seems a little strained consider this: Barack Obama is close to having played more rounds of golf since 2009 than Tiger Woods.

        America would happily kick him to the curb, but he can’t run again in 2016 – so these midterm elections are the chance to send a message of complaint.

        The Republicans won’t get a landslide (for reasons I’ll touch upon later), but if they do perform well then it’s worth noting that voters aren’t just being petty and spiteful to the President and his party. They have sound reasons to be angry about the Democrat record.

        How Barack Obama became toxic for Democrats 21 Oct 2014

        Barack Obama: the end of a love affair 09 Oct 2014

        It’s true that unemployment has fallen to its lowest point since Obama took office, but that’s actually coincided with a collapse in his approval ratings: joblessness has dipped below 6 per cent, but 53 per cent of Americans think Obama is doing a bad job with the economy.

        The reason? Quality of life is poor. Starting at the very bottom, poverty levels point to stagnation. In January 2009 the poverty rate stood at 14.3 per cent. It rose to around 15 per cent and then fell back down in 2013 to 14.5 per cent (but the actual number of those in poverty remained the same from 2012). Things are worse for black Americans, whose poverty rate has risen in that same period from 25.8 per cent to 27.2 per cent.

        • Grannysmovin

          Why are you back

          • exdemo55

            I’m having fun!

          • Grannysmovin

            Hey I support that reasoning. Have a Happy Halloween.

  • exdemo55

    Still moe Crazies:

    Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

    • ericlipps

      I’m pretty sure that’s a misquotation, accidental or deliberate.

      • exdemo55

        Nope, It’s on video, word for word.

        • ericlipps

          Then it’s a misunderstanding, in the sense that businesses don’t create job all by themselves but do so I an economic environment create partly by their efforts, partly by those of other businesses and partly by government policies.

          That, or the “word for word” video is doctored.

          • exdemo55

            Nope, it wasn;t doctored and government policies only hender job creation

          • ericlipps


            All right, giving you the benefit of the doubt, then my other explanation doubtless applies. I mean, come on: who, of any party, would believe that businesses have nothing to do with job creation? On the other hand, business depends on all sorts of infrastructure, from roads to sewage to the power grid, with which government has a great deal to do and always has had.

            Not giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do I know your video wasn’t manipulated? Because some faceless guy on the Internet says so? If the shoe were on the other foot and there was a video out there which made a conservative candidate look stupid, would you?

            As for your claim about government policies, that’s a statement of belief, not of fact, and happens to be easily falsified. Government policies have nurtured the growth of various industries, jobs and all, since the beginning of this country, from the building of the Erie Canal, which boosted maritime commerce, through the railroads (aided by land grants and military protection of the construction crews) and the emergence of civilian air travel (nurtured by federal air mail contracts), radio, television, the interstate highway system, the Internet and on and on, all of which produced jobs. (Technically, of course, the highway system wasn’t an industry, but it facilitated many others.)

          • exdemo55

            Google the video and watch it yourself, in full context. She is a socialist which is first cousin to a communist. Just like Obama, (You didn’t build that business, somebody else did.” And businesses were creating jobs long before there was infrastucture.

          • ericlipps

            The whole point you’re missing is that no business operates outside of human society, which gives the entrepreneur something to work with.

            And no, businesses weren’t “creating jobs long before there was infrastructure,” which includes such fripperies as a postal system and roads–which go back to Roman times, and even earlier, before anyone had ever heard of capitalism as we know it (or socialism either).

            As for Obama being a socialist: you’re free to call him one, of course. You’re free to call him a Martian, for that matter. That doesn’t make it true.

          • exdemo55

            Nope, businesses were creating jobs long before infrastructure, long before the Romans. It fact, it was businesses that created the need for infrastrcture which created even more jobs. And you have your head in the sand if you don’t think Obama and Clinton are socialist.

          • ericlipps

            Nope. “Infrastructure” is a pretty basic concept, though the word itself is of twentieth-century coinage. It goes back to the earliest settled human communities. Business doesn’t.

            Now, it’s true that trade goes back into prehistory. But business in any recognizable sense required the development of complex societies which had, among other things, money and some sort of system for keeping track of it. I doubt that Adam Smith would have counted tribal barter systems as “business,” though of course he would have acknowledged them as commerce.

            As for Obama and Clinton being socialist, those who actually are—in Western Europe, for example—would laugh themselves sick at the idea. You can define them as socialist, if you choose—you can define them as werewolves if you choose—but that doesn’t make it so. All it does is stretch the definition of “socialism” (or “werewolf”)beyond all recognition. However, if that makes you feel better, go ahead.

          • exdemo55

            Nope, business is even pre-money. And you’re really streaching your logic now. By any normal thought Obama and Clinton are socialists.

          • ericlipps

            It depends, I suppose, on what you’re willing to label as “business.”

            Ditto for “socialism” (and for “normal thought” on that subject). Apparently, you define as “normal” only those who agree with you that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are socialists. Apparently, you also define “socialism” as synonymous with Stalinism, which would be news to Scandinavians.

            When you can pick and choose the meaning of all relevant terms, you can make anything mean anything, or nothing. George Orwell (socialist that he was, if a disillusioned one by the end of his life)
            understood that.

          • exdemo55

            President Obama says that income taxes must be raised on the rich because they don’t pay their fair share. The indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.

            The CBO reports based on official IRS data that in 2009 the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. Yet, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost 15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income.

            Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal income taxes as a group on net.

            Any normal person would say that such an income tax system is more than fair, or maybe that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Wouldn’t somebody in his Administration whisper to him that he is peddling nonsense?

            The answer is that to President Obama this is still not fair because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share. That is the only logical explanation of President Obama’s rhetoric, and it is 100% consistent with his own published background.

            Notice that Obama keeps saying that “the rich,” a crass term implying low class social envy, don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. That is reminiscent of the fundamental Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

            Good tax policy is not guided by “need.” It is guided by what is needed to establish the incentives to maximize economic growth. The middle class, working people and the poor are benefited far more by economic growth than by redistribution. That is shown by the entire 20th century, where the standard of living of American workers increased by more than 7 times, through sustained, rapid economic growth.

            But President Obama’s tax policy of increasing all tax rates on savings and investment will work exactly contrary to such economic growth. It is savings and investment which creates jobs and increases productivity and wages. Under capitalism, capital and labor are complementary, not adversarial, exactly contrary to the misunderstanding of Marxists. More capital investment increases the demand for labor, bidding up wages to the level of worker productivity, which is enhanced by the capital investment.

            Increasing marginal tax rates on savings and investment, however, will mean less of it, not more. That will mean fewer jobs, and lower wages, just as we have experienced so far under President Obama, with median household incomes (hello middle class) declining by 7.3% (a month’s worth of wages) during his first term, even faster after the recession supposedly ended in 2009. That will only get worse in Obama’s unearned second term, which can only be explained as “democracy failure” analogous to “market failure.”

            If the tax increases are limited to those who earn $1 million or more, I don’t know if that alone will be enough to create a recession, as I am certain would be the result with Obama’s original policy of targeting couples making over $250,000 a year, and singles making over $200,000.

            But there is so much in the Obama economic program that is contractionary. His second term promises enormous new regulatory burdens and barriers. The EPA is shutting down the coal industry, and Interior will join with it to sharply constrain oil production further, despite Obama’s duplicitous campaign rhetoric taking credit for the production produced by the policies and efforts of others. I expect Obama’s EPA to burden natural gas fracking until it goes the way of the coal industry as well, stealing new found prosperity for many Americans. All of this will sharply raise energy prices, which will be another effective tax on the economy.

            Moreover, President Obama has said that a priority in his second term will be global warming, even though global temperatures have not been increasing for 16 years now, and the developing world led by Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRIC countries), which are contributing to “greenhouse gases” at a much greater accelerating rate than the U.S., have rejected sacrificing any slice of their economies to that ideological phantom. While even the Democrat Congress of Obama’s first term failed to adopt “cap and trade,” EPA is advancing with global warming regulations that will cost the economy trillions in still another effective tax.

            Then there are the onrushing regulatory burdens of Obamacare, including the employer mandate, which will require all businesses with 50 employees or more to buy the most expensive health insurance available. That will be an effective tax on employment. As Obamacare forces up the cost of health insurance, that will be still another effective tax increase on all employers already providing health coverage. Hundreds of regulations still in the pipeline under the “Dodd-Frank” legislation are already forcing the financial sector to contract, and threaten the business and consumer credit essential to full recovery.

            In addition, few are adequately considering the longer term contractionary effects of the Fed’s current policy mischief. For years now, businesses and investments have been launched all over the country based on the near zero interest rates, and even below zero real rates, that Fed policies have perpetuated, along with the easy free money . When those rates inevitably rise back to normal, most likely after these Fed policies have resparked inflation, the basis for those businesses and investments will be gone, and many if not most will go into liquidation, which will be highly contractionary as well.

            However, I am certain in any event that the Obama tax increases will result in less revenue rather than more. Obama has been proposing to increase the capital gains tax rate by 58% on the nation’s job creators, investors and successful small businesses, counting his Obamacare tax increases that take effect on January 1 as well the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. While his misleading talking points say there will be no tax increases for 97% of small businesses, that counts every Schedule C filed for every part time or hobby sole proprietorship, however marginal the earnings. The small businesses that would bear President Obama’s originally proposed tax increases earn 91% of all small business income, and employ 54% of the total private sector U.S. work force, as reported in Investors Business Daily on November 9.

            Over the last 45 years, every time capital gains tax rates have been raised, revenues have fallen, and every time they have been cut, revenues have increased. The capital gains rate was raised 4 times from 1968 to 1975, climbing from 25% to 35%. The 25% rate produced real capital gains revenues in 1968 of $40.6 billion in 2000 dollars. By 1975, at the higher rate, capital gains revenues had plummeted to $19.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars, less than half as much.

            After the capital gains rate was cut from 35% to 20% from 1978 to 1981, capital gains revenues had tripled by 1986 compared to 1978. Then the capital gains rate was raised by 40% in 1987 to 28%. By 1991, capital gains revenues had collapsed to $34.4 billion, down from $92.9 billion in 1986, in constant 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation.

            Obama’s capital gains tax increase next year will reduce capital gains revenues again as well.

          • ericlipps

            You don’t help your credibility by whining about President Obama being a “Marxist.” Unless you can document that, it’s just name-calling. And of course capital gains tax intake increased after the end of a serious recession deliberately engineered to break the back of inflation. That doesn’t mean the government was collecting more money because it was collecting less, which is what the tax cutter’ argument boiled down to.

            As for there being no global warming oer the past 16 years, Scientific American, no Marxist rag, has an
            excellent breakdown of what’s really happening
            . Basically, the oceans are absorbing huge amounts of heat and, as a result, are rising. The same article also notes that although the rate of temperature increase has slowed, it remains within the range of predictions generated by the Intergovernmental Panel
            on Climate Change—that is, cotrary to some people’s claims, it isn’t zero.

            And you could benefit from a good copy editor.

            Good tax policy is not guided by “need.” It is guided by what is needed to establish the incentives to maximize economic growth.

            In other words, good tax policy isn’t guided by need, but by what is needed? In fairness, what you seem to be saying is that the poor and working class don’t need help; only the already prosperous do, in order to stay that way and grow richer. But while that may not be out-and-out self-contradictory, it’s not very convincing. Which, I suppose, explains all the red-flag waving.

          • dtgraham

            That is not a quote concerning, “You didn’t build that business, somebody else did”. Obama never said that. He never said those words at all, and he never meant that in the context of that made up quote. He was talking about infrastructure at the time. He went on at length about roads and bridges and pipelines and electrical grids, etc… and then casually remarked at the end that “you didn’t build that”(quite obviously referring to those things). He was trying to make a point and was clearly referencing infrastructure, and never at any time mentioned the word “business” or the phrases “you didn’t build that business” or “somebody else did.”

            You may think he put too much weight on infrastructure, in terms of importance, to the success of American business. That’s fair enough, but the political right can’t just make up stuff. That is possibly the most misquoted, taken completely out of context, bald faced lie that I’ve ever heard a politician accused of.

    • jmConn

      She’s right, businesses don’t create jobs, demand does. We consumers create jobs by needing/desiring products and services. No good businessman gets up in the morning and decides to create some jobs today if there is no demand for what those jobs would produce.

      • idamag

        Yes. The economy is consumer driven. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

      • exdemo55

        Nope, businesses create products that create demand

  • idamag

    Texas, know that there are many nutjobs in your state, but do the rest of us a favor and quit sending them to Washington.