Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week in The Nation, investigative reporter Teo Ballve exposed a stunning lapse in American foreign policy: USAID's "Plan Colombia" appears to be subsidizing drug traffickers. Although USAID insists that it has done nothing wrong, Balleve's investigation suggests that taxpayer funds are allowing Narcotraffickers to cultivate biofuels on stolen, contested land. It's a disturbing story, and while it hasn't taken off here in the States it made the front page of Colombia's newspaper of record, El Tiempo. The link is here (in Spanish). Here is a great interview with Teo from the Jack Rice Show, from Air America and other stations nationwide.
We're hopeful that more attention on this important story will yield some action and a change in USAID policy.
Also this week in/at The Nation, three other stories you may have missed:
* In our special issue on economic inequality from June, 2008, journalist Gabriel Thompson put a face on the financial crisis in his article, Meet the Wealth Gap. In the piece, Thompson profiled a hedge fund worker and the maintenance staff that cleans the hedge funders building. This week Thompson was honored for his work with a 2007-08 Studs Terkel Media Award, presented by the Working-Class Studies Association. Thompson was honored at their annual conference this past weekend. Congratulations to Gabriel.
* In the magazine this week we're proud to offer an excerpt of Eduardo Galeano's remarkable new collection of essays, Mirrors: Stories of Almost Everyone. On her program "GRIT TV with Laura Flanders", Nation contributor Laura Flanders sat down with Eduardo for a one-on-one interview about his book, his life and politics today. You can watch the interview here.
* Finally this week: the dustup over Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the resurgence of Dick Cheney have provoked some serious conversations about conservatism. Is American conservatism in free-fall, or are there principles for a new and vibrant conservatism emerging from the ashes of "the party of no?" I debated the future of American politics with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Joe has a new book out on the future of American conservatism; our spirited conversation ranged from the role of government to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. You can watch the video here or below; let me know in the comments if I made some salient points or if you would have taken a different point of view.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"Meet the Wealth Gap" looks engaging - I would have missed it without the pointer. Thanks -
(As for the Sotomayor debate, I really find the entire fixation on identity politics, to the exclusion of any debate focused on her actual record and any reasons beyond "Latina" that Obama nominated, to be very weird and disappointing.)
Posted by syfriendly at 06/09/2009 @ 6:43pm
I could only go 8 minutes w/the video....my guess is this segment was an overall loser for holding general viewer interest.
As for you Ms. KvH.....I don't suggest you start your future `debate' with the attacks: "the paler....Party of no...la de da", most especially if you think American conservatism is in "free-fall". That's like going into the ring where you're heavily favored (at least you think so) and the first thing you do, is spit in your opponent's face before touching your boxing gloves.
I obviously don't find your discussion of economics convincing....your line of repudiating Reagan for cutting school lunches (for e.g.)....conservatives just don't believe it's the Feds' role to make sure kids have at least one supervised meal on school days.....you wouldn't go into the root reason but you tried to make a populist point.....Joe couldn't possibly find the time to butt head w/you on such piddly-ass points.
Like I said, I didn't finish....maybe the ending became more substantive....as to whetehr Big Gubberment is so much smarter on allocating risks and rewards or not.
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 6:50pm
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Are you *trying* to be an obnoxious jerk, or does it just come naturally to you?
Posted by syfriendly at 06/09/2009 @ 6:55pm
Posted by syfriendly at 06/09/2009 @ 6:55pm
Are you daring to call me black? Laughable....you are not fit to be in the same ring as I.
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 7:00pm
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 6:50pm |
Interesting you didn't watch it to the end....
right when Joe agreed with Ms vanden Heuvel that Wall Street (your baby...supposedly) needed to be reined in.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:48pm
Wall Street (your baby...supposedly) needed to be reined in.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:48pm
And it would have been without the bailout.....I know what it's like to drop 15~20% (my `08 scorecard) and I imagine, for the honchos of WS to lose perhaps most of their wealth & lucrative partnerships, will serve as better `regulation' than being bailed out.
As your children gets older, you'll understand they need to fail sometimes and one must stand by and let it happen.
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 9:42pm
Wow! Wicked nice opening KVH. And then you get better. Thank you.
Scarborough' book quote --- "these politicians" "these politicians" "these politicians" "these politicians" "these politicians" what a loser!
Scarborough career = brown-nosing the cons. Looks like he's trying to finally split from Cheney-W.
Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2009 @ 9:58pm
" ... You can watch the video here or below; let me know in the comments if I made some salient points or if you would have taken a different point of view ..."
In truth, it was not really feasible through the clip you posted to discern any concise viewpoint or singular idea. There was a back-and-forth (thankfully civil, as opposed to the Bill O'Reilly rant-fest that passes for discussion these days) but I really couldn't see any real point that either you or Scarborough made. I blame it on the format, as certainly the editor of The Nation magazine is in a position to make points.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/09/2009 @ 10:00pm
Looks like he's trying to finally split from Cheney-W.-----Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2009 @ 9:58pm
That's true of atleast HALF the pundits and right-wing bloggers I've seen as well.
Still a few die-hard Dubya/Cheney cultists out there, but most of the conservatives know that not distancing themselves from them and acting like "What? I never liked Bush and Cheney! Where did you get THAT idea? I'm a conservative, those guys were neo-cons!"...
is as vital to any future credibility, as distancing themselves from Hoover in the 30s or Nixon in the 70s.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 07:47am
"Male, pale and stale," is your best comment.
Your dictation was halting in the beginning. I would suggest having prepared "sound bite" talking points and practice delivering them more slowly. If you compare and contrast your delivery with Joe's, he comes across as much more likable - not because of his ideas, but because his speech is more fluid and friendly sounding.
In this case, I think you could look at the write-up on his book at Random House and could have had these talking points:
1. The financial meltdown was caused by lack of regulation.
2. The current economic environment is a crisis. When in a crisis, you have to take extraordinary measures.
3. Sometimes these extraordinary measures must include bailouts and stimulus, and they aren't necessarily bad. Loans to Chrysler resulted in a profit for the government.
4. There is no such thing as "socialist spending". Socialism is government ownership.
5. Ronald Reagan expanded government debt to "win the Cold War". He's administration is not a model for fiscal responsibility.
You know you are going to have 5-7 minutes. You don't have the time to develop arguments with facts. Focus on 3 or 4 of your talking points - these directly address his book, but you certainly could have added others such as your "Public investment deficit." You'll notice he avoided that like the plague. If you would have stayed on that point, he would have had trouble - but then again, this way you might not get the invite back.
I also liked the fact that you ending on a point of agreement, "conservative green movement". People tend to remember the beginning and end of these types of exchanges. You were a bit halting in the beginning, which you need to work on. But, the softer ending looking for agreement is a positive.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/10/2009 @ 09:09am
I watched it Katrina and as usual you were stuck in your socialism is the answer mode.
Meanwhile, I applaud Scarborough and his book. I have new found respect for his attempt to reset conservativism back to it's principles.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 6:50pm
Hardly. If you think about it, she gave them exactly what they were looking for.
Part of the reason for this segment is to promote Joe's book. The network figures that if people read their anchor's book and like the guy, they may tune in and watch more. They also don't have to do any real work for this kind of segment, so it has a low cost.
But, who's going to buy a cable anchor's book on politics? You need to have some kind of drama, a clash of ideas that might get someone off their couch and over to their local bookstore or to Amazon to read this book. The fact that you view it as "spitting in his face" means you are much more likely to do just that, than someone who found the whole conversation trite and boring.
So, KvH has to walk a fine line where she walks into this kind of set-up, gives them what they want, but also gets what she wants - which is greater exposure for The Nation and for the ideas she supports.
But, you are right that she has room for improvement on this score. But then again, she's not on TV every day, and this is a difficult skill to master. So, I think we can cut her some slack. Overall, it wasn't a bad piece.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/10/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 09:15am
I smell a sale!
Posted by srjenkins at 06/10/2009 @ 09:24am
Meanwhile, I applaud Scarborough and his book. I have new found respect for his attempt to reset conservativism back to it's principles.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 09:15am
Interesting. Given Scarborough says Bush was a failure.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:13am
Interesting. Given Scarborough says Bush was a failure.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:13am
Not really. I don't completely agree with Scarborough's conclusions, but there is much to like and respect in what he is saying. He is definitely sounding more like a conservative again after sounding more like a moderate the past 4 years.
I said for several years that Bush did some great things like cutting taxes, Supreme Court appointments, standing against embryonic stem cell funding,the war on terror, and a reasonable approach to the immigration problem.
But I've also said he failed to halt the outrageous domestic spending, the Medicare Drug program that he pushed, Fed funding of Education, not pushing harder in the war on terror, his recognition of a potential palestinian state in Israel, not ending the drug war (especially against marijuana), the terrible bailout decision last fall; in the end, Bush showed that the fears of conservatives were real. He was more like his father than different.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 11:22am
Does anybody here really believe that Scarborough was even as well prepared for Katrina as, say, Ray Nagin was?
Posted by Mistral at 06/10/2009 @ 12:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 11:22am
You might have to look the other way a LOT, Larry.
Most of your right-wing pundits (Scarborough, Beck, etc.) are trying to put PLENTY of distance between themselves and Dubya and Cheney....which seems a BIT insulting to you few die-hards who thought they were almost as good as sliced bread, no?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 1:07pm
You might have to look the other way a LOT, Larry.
Most of your right-wing pundits (Scarborough, Beck, etc.) are trying to put PLENTY of distance between themselves and Dubya and Cheney....which seems a BIT insulting to you few die-hards who thought they were almost as good as sliced bread, no?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 1:07pm
You need to remember Mask that my opinion does not depend on right wing pundits. I may agree with some on many or a few issues and I will probably disagree with most on at least some issues. My opinions are my own and are not shaped by pundits.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
True...you're your own man, despite fondness for Rush and Morning Joe.
But it doesn't seem as if a lot of your brethren (ideologically) are going to stick to their guns and wait for "the day when Bush and Cheney are redeemed by history!!!!"....does it?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:41pm
True...you're your own man, despite fondness for Rush and Morning Joe.
But it doesn't seem as if a lot of your brethren (ideologically) are going to stick to their guns and wait for "the day when Bush and Cheney are redeemed by history!!!!"....does it?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:41pm
that's called politics.
Bush and Cheney will be redeemed by history regarding the war on Terror. They will not be viewed as kindly on their domestic policies.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:05pm
Bush and Cheney will be redeemed by history regarding the war on Terror. They will not be viewed as kindly on their domestic policies.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:05pm
I wonder if Anti when he says redeemed, actually means throwing gas on a the fire.
Our "war on terror" has been more of a propaganda tool for simpletons like Anti to buy into. Namely because other than calling something the war on terror, there is really no war on terror. We invaded two countries. Two separate wars, only Afghanistan has any relation to terror, as that was the home base for one terrorist group. Bush/Cheney and their ilk have milked American fervor over the 911 attacks, while really doing nothing but creating stronger, battle tested, terrorists. They have vastly facilitated the ability for terror groups to recruit, by allowing American forces to invade, kill civilians, and commit atrocities in Muslim dominated countries. NONE of this has actually been effective at fighting terror. The opposite has likely occured and likely to result in more terrorist attacks in the future. I have no crystal ball (unlike Anti's bible), and I hope I am wrong, time will tell.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/10/2009 @ 3:31pm
Is David Corn taking his cue from KvH?.....dittoCorns?
From Corn's blog;
GOP: Party of White, Balding Guys?
By David Corn | June 10, 2009 11:03 AM
Posted by Happy at 06/10/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:05pm
What redeeming cast will historians bestow on Cheney-W's Al Quaida-Iraq link?
BEFORE --
President Cheney on invasion of Iraq & link to Al Quaida: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
and... "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.
AFTER --
Current/Ex-President Cheney now that the brown people have been decimated, and Afghanistan is nicely kindling: "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11."
Nevermind.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 7:29pm
Now, now....Larry WAS "half-right"-
"They will not be viewed as kindly on their domestic policies."---Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:05pm
if a bit under-stated.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 7:32pm
I'm conservative: I place the military, oil and minerals and natural resources of America, and the health (healthcare) of America all in the sacred defense/ security sphere.
Adam Smith: first duty of government is defense of the country. None of these - military, energy, healthcare - should be ravaged by corporate profiteers.
Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Pfizer, Aetna should compete for peripheral positioning, not dictate the market.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 8:23pm
You know, I am still trying to figure out how WE as American Citizens can tap into the USAID fund to help our poor backward nation to assure our future and humanity? Can we have some of that money $180,000,000,000. that will be given to the IMF? It would sure keep us from running up short this year!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:26pm
You know, I am still trying to figure out how WE as American Citizens can tap into the USAID fund to help our poor backward nation to assure our future and humanity?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:26pm
maybe you could ask the pentagon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:41pm
Did you hear? The Obamanation that makes desolation say we made TWO dollars rescuing some banks now that they are to repay us! Wow I sure can use that for a stick of gum with the coming inflation!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:48pm
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:26pm
It's less expensive to give someone in Afghanistan technical assistance in how to open a business than it is to bomb them or station U.S. troops there. It makes people less likely to want to pick up their weapons too.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:48pm
The money that gets paid is taken out of circulation and works to reduce inflation, the same way lending it out causes it. So, the point isn't the interested earned, but the fact it was paid back before it could have inflationary effects.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/11/2009 @ 07:45am
Wow I sure can use that for a stick of gum with the coming inflation!---Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 11:48pm
Yet....still no escape plan?!??!??!???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 08:25am
3 trillion in the desert?....lets see, i am not a math major...but lets do it anyway.....
The war in iraq costs around 2 billion a month, i presume Iraq you are talking about since all liberals love the "war of necessity in afghan," according to the GAO and DoD.
We have been in Iraq for 82 months...that adds up to??? 160 billion dollars spent so far..give or take a few billion...3 trillion? that is your boy...barry!
You are adeptly identified as snowball666..lol
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 11:20am
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 11:20am
10/25/2007
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday. A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.
The new estimate also includes President Bush's request Monday for another $46 billion in war funding, said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., budget committee chairman, who provided the CBO's new numbers to USA TODAY.
Assuming that Iraq accounts for about 80% of that total, the Iraq war would cost $1.9 trillion, including $564 billion in interest, said Thomas Kahn, Spratt's staff director. The committee holds a hearing on war costs this morning.
www.usatoday.com
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 11:31am
But, hey, CPT...even if it was "just 2.4 Trillion"....look what we got?
A government led by Shiias who are trying to impose Sharia law and Baghdad is now more friendly to Iran...
and 4100+ openings in personnel that folks looking for a job in this recession might get.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 11:33am
From Rasmussen Reports:
53% Say More Government Spending Hurts the Economy
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Most voters (53%) believe increases in government spending hurt the economy....it's up five points from 48% in January.
Just 27% now say increased government spending helps the economy, and 10% say it has no impact.
Most Republicans (73%) and unaffiliated voters (57%) say more government spending is bad for the economy. But a plurality of Democrats (45%) thinks increased government spending is beneficial.
Voters are much more supportive of cuts in government spending as opposed to increases. Almost half of voters (46%) think decreases in government spending help the economy, while 27% say they hurt it.
...45% of Americans say the rest of the new government spending should now be canceled...48% of adults do not think new stimulus spending creates more jobs.
When it comes to taxes, voters remain in favor of cutting them. Most (58%) believe tax cuts help the economy....18% say tax cuts hurt the economy, while 15% say they have no impact....
Fifty-three percent (53%) say tax increases hurt the economy,...Nearly a quarter (23%) say tax increases help.
More than one-in-three voters (36%) now expect their own personal taxes to go up under President Obama. That ties the highest level found since he was inaugurated in January. Only 14% now expect their taxes to go down under the Obama administration.....
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 6:34pm
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 6:34pm
HAPP, have you noticed an "odd coincidence"?
That Rasmussen and ONLY Rasmussen....provides you guys your best polling.
Not so much Gallup, Quinnipiac, even Fox News/Opinion Dynamics....
just Rasmussen.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 8:56pm
just Rasmussen.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 8:56pm
Isn't it rather amazing that Rasmussen just oh so lucky to be reflecting the mood of the country as to Magic's failing (I won't condemn it yet as having failed, but time is our friend) policies?
Recent personal interactions involved:
1) a Nigerian-American who runs a small trade school.....he is deeply disappointed in fellow African, BHO! He is making more concrete plans for his 6.5 Nigerian acres to possibly return to.
2) A non-profit here in Houston just closed 2 store fronts due to donation drop-offs....sought my advice on terminating their remaining lease. This surprised me as I assumed they are the type slated for `stimulating'.
And of course, I just feel it in my bones that with the HAPPY increases in the price of oil/gas, folks that love Magic, will find him (and the usual Exxons) less lovable by the gallons. Secondly, the rise in 10-yr T-bonds, will throw a monkey wrench into all sorts of (already shitty) forecasts.
The Emperor really has no clothes.....and even some Dems, importantly those in Congress, seem to be coming out of their stupor.....plus, Sotomayor's path to the SC isn't the shoe-in some thinks...man, what a sight to behold!
I scripted a good chunk of the implosion of the HusseinO administration....but now it's in `production', it's much better than I imagined.
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 10:00pm
Hahahaha, MASK.....I can't turn around on the web w/out finding more beautiful & implosive (proposed) moves by your Emperor:
JUNE 12, 2009
Tax Man's Target: The Mobile Phone
The use of company-issued mobile phones could trigger new federal income taxes on millions of Americans as a "fringe benefit."
The Internal Revenue Service proposed employers assign 25% of an employee's annual phone expenses as a taxable benefit. Under that scenario, a worker in the 28% tax bracket, whose wireless device costs the company $1,500 a year, could see $105 in additional federal income tax.
The IRS, in a notice issued this week, said employees could avoid tax liability if they showed proof they used personal cellphones for nonbusiness calls during work hours. The agency also could decide on a ...
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 10:08pm
OK, folks, late night true-false question (for Libs only):
Magic promised no tax increases for those making less than $250k which meant 95% of taxpayers "will NOT pay a single dime more". Now, then, tell us if this statement is true or false:
Only employees making more than $250k have the luxury of company-provided mobile phones.
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 10:13pm
From Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics, June 12, 2009:
Obama's "gift" propelled him to the White House. He's now relying on it heavily to sell the American people on his vision of change. But at some point the public is going to get tired of hearing speeches from Obama, no matter how eloquent or well delivered. They will expect results. If Obama can't deliver those results, his "gift" will become a handicap in the form of a reputation as the president who talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk.
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 10:40pm
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 10:00pm
But how is it that...EVERY OTHER POLL...including Fox News/Opinion Dynamics...
comes up with slightly more positive news for Obama, slightly less positive news for Republicans???
ONLY Scott Rasmussen is accurate? He's the ONLY one who uses the proper methodology and survey questions? He's the ONLY one who has found the "perfect formula" for gauging the American people?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 09:12am
.....like asking if spending $32 on dinner is unreasonable, without discussing whether the meal in question was a grass-fed NY Strip or a Whopper.
Posted by snowball666 at 06/12/2009 @ 09:34am
Sorta like asking if getting $50 Billion worth of timely stimulus out of a $787 Billion `gotta have it now or unemployment will hit 8%' pork bill?
Where are the "loaded questions" all them Ivy League edumycated `journalists' could ask The One about why unemployment is 9.4% and headed higher?
BTW, I spent $370 for dinner a few nights ago to celebrate my youngest's HS graduation.....we didn't discuss at all "whether the meal in question was a grass-fed NY Strip or a Whopper"....the Rasmussen way!
Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35am
Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35am
Actually, HAPP....what Scott Rasmussen does, as in his "Presidential Approvals", is to take the "Strongly Support" and "Strongly Oppose"...and say they "cancel each other out".
Thus leaving Obama with a much lower percentage of support, despite the fact that it might be 23% Strongly Oppose versus...24% Strongly Support and 40% Somewhat Support (with 13% Somewhat Oppose or Undecided)...
and then tell you Obama's not as popular as all the other polls say.
Naturally, this gamesmanship is COMPLETELY "non-partisan"...naturally.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 11:56am
I thought Katrina did well in the opening statement, at least before intermixing with ignorance, as I have trouble with this myself. Compared to the opening statement of the writing in Joe's book, there is no reason for me to listen to his voice as I happened to catch a promo on MSNBC later when I am actually awake and found his spirit to be lacking in substance and therefore I choose to block it out from my ears as a source of pollution and this "selfish lifestyle" that Republicans think they possess when actually they seem to fester in their "estates" or in their poorer viewers, in a perpetual state of turmoil triggered by rationality amongst people continuing to live through our bizarre world involvement that is not easy to comprehend. Spend money now, put forth the works, for bridges and schools and take from the rich and give to the poor. The rich are not using it for edification anyways, but rather quick escapes from the turmoil they are creating.
Posted by baggins25 at 06/13/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by baggins25 at 06/13/2009 @ 5:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just love all the rob the rich give to the poor progressive lies! It is called the "sin of greed and avarice" which is NOT restricted to those who are wealthy or have through hard work, long hours, and diligence and education gained wealth. The petty greedy leftist preaching income equalization are no different than the 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients which is why socialism is so appealing to them!
They will use a multiplicity of arguments and petty grievences to attempt to establish their "right" (from God knows who) to obtain the wealth of others unearned and unjustifiably
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 10:48pm