Can right-wing talk inspire another beer-gut revolution?

Taking a moment from wall-to-wall coverage of the Octomom, Sean Hannity's website has a poll:

What kind of revolution appeals most to you? The Hannitized ditto-heads are voting, and so far, 22.22% favor a Military Coup; 35.56% are for a War for Secession; but 42.22% are for good ol' Armed Rebellion.

Is this another go at mainstreaming the far, far right with an uprising of the militia windbags, the exurban goons w/guns, those beer-gut revolutionaries with the mail-order long guns converted to fully-auto?

Don't laugh it's happened before, and not that long ago ... as the crow's feet fly.

All it took last time were right-wingers desperately frustrated with the outcome of an election as they are right now in the post conservative world of President Barack Obama.

In the early '90's, in the warming environment of burgeoning right-wing talk radio after the election of Bill Clinton, the powerfully paranoid militias stuck their heads up out of their holes.

Mainstream hosts like Art Bell championed these nutballs as 2nd Amendment heroes.

Even KVI (the only conservative talk station in Seattle then) flirted, mostly out of naiveté, with the far, far right. Mike Siegel joined white separatist Col. Bo Gritz (rhymes with tights) in an on-air smarm-fest at a survivalist expo and was roundly denounced by the Seattle press. There was a show for a while from the

(photo: Col. Bo Gritz, suicide survivor)  

racist/conspiracist Liberty Lobby. Political hitman Floyd Brown warned against the New World Order and introduced guests such as Satan-baiting evangelist Bob Larson.

Even Kirby Wilbur, a real estate appraiser brand new to broadcasting, bought a Glock and gave succor to militia men such as Montana Militia's notorious duffoon, John Trochmann in interviews that were big hits to an audience being rapidly politicized.

Art Bell talked nightly with the black helicopter conspire-racists like Michigan Militiaman Mark Koernke who kept us apprised of the UN choppers patrolling the West. Listeners from Darrington, Ballard and Ferndale called Kirby after seeing them in their airspaces.

Then came Oklahoma City, Waco, and Ruby Ridge. The militias and talk radio were denounced from the White House. Talk radio retreated to concentrate on killing Bill Clinton; the Gingrich Revolution happened, and the militias crawled back into their spiderholes. (Bo Gritz attempted suicide- not from biting a cyanide capsule as the jackboots beat down his door, but by shooting himself in the chest during a bad divorce).

For talk radio, it was a case of naiveté and overreach, spawned by the arrogance and misperception of their own power. 

(photo: militia babes: yum-o!)

This ain't quite sedition, but it's sort of playing at it on the Interwebs. We're not sure why Hannity, the razor-cut Fox Newsboy and talk host with the Irish, choirboy lips, would allow such a thing on his site. Hannity craves to appear mainstream, despite such examples of his marginalization.

The conservative movement has jumped off this extreme cliff before; to avoid doing it once again they'd do well stopping the talk about seceding and holing up with a high-powered rifle.

Comments

[reds are back]

When you reward people who exhibit poor behavior (buy too much house, constantly live beyond their means, or lend money to those who can't afford to pay it back, or, say, illegally enter the country) and force those who've made the correct decisions (lived within their means, made sound business choices, sound investments, saved money, & adhered to the law) to pay the consequences of other's actions, you are going to have some pissed off people who feel like total jackasses being that they'd be off scott free if they hadn't worked their tail off their whole life.

I liked Obama's desire for change, but it won't come without allowing people to fail.

If my son blasted through his savings and built up a ton of credit his freshman year of college, I sure as hell won't give him more money and a credit card. What does that teach? It teaches that he could always count on me to bail him out. What happens when i don't have the money to bail him out? He'd be in an even bigger mess.

Guess what, the US doesn't have the money to bail out all you debt ridden scum suckers of society. Where is that money coming from. $3.6T, plus the stimulus, plus the bailouts, God forbid we have a natural disaster or are attacked by terrorists, and enemy combatants, sorry, ahem, foreign Muslim extremists who deserve trial by a jury of their ...peers?

Don't give me the Bush's 8 years of outrageous spending argument, it was outrageous, at the time, but now completely lame in comparison to the almost 2 months of this bastard President we have now.

I guess my suspicions that all the vague talk about Hope and Change, and lack of detail in the campaign were justified. I'm glad I didn't vote for him. The fate of our economy is on your conscience. All I can do is protest, use the money I still have to try and influence legislators, and try to keep it all peaceful.

But even my passive-ass is pissed, and I was not a Bush supporter. Imagine how the crazy right-wingers are feeling right now. And they're the one's with all the guns, and are watching their grandchildren being robbed by Nancy Pelosi et. al.

We are, indeed, in scary times. Wake up and smell that before we're burning cash for heat again.

-Pissed off "rich" guy who's bringing in over $250G this year and will see my taxes raised to 39% to pay for your mistakes.

Enjoy my hard-earned money, and don't get pissed when I don't tip, don't give, & don't invest to the degree I once did.

[sparky]

duffoon...

[slumdog]

Ammunition is being acquired and accumulated at a rate never experienced before. Get it while you can.

[Habu]

zero has been nominated for gun salesman of the year.

Shelves are nearly bare of rifle and pistol ammo at some of the larger sporting goods stores. Firearm orders are back logged and sellling across the US at unprecedented rates.

Gadsden flags sales are on the rise.

So it begins?

[chucks]

Make light all that you want folks. We may have a virtual dictatorship standing over us. Obama has greatly expanded the role of federal government in just 5 weeks.
He has imposed and funded Hillary Healthcare without debate. Created "Czars" who usurp Congressional oversight.
Obama has announced a redistribution of wealth program that Lenin would envy. Proudly announcing that mayors and governors would report directly to Him. So much for states rights.
Teh One has announced an intention to put a ban on all "semi-automatic" weapons, which would include pretty much all but grandpa's old six shooter and over-under shotgun.
The asshat has me shopping for an Armalite model 15 and ordering boxes of ammo.
Armed insurrection is illegal and I do not promote it. Our Constitution still allows for us to defend against all enemys, foreign and domestic and I just want to be able.
I do not intend to violate any laws, but I sure as hell am praying for a meteor to hit Washington and wipe out the whole lot of them, Dem and Rep so that we can start over and get back to a government based on our Constitution.

[rozskat]

A right wing revolution? Nah, rename it to the angry white male revolution. In the end you will wind up shooting each other like Hamas and Fatah over who is more conservative. The paranoia of the right wing is beyond comedic. Keep it up boys; you guys are better than anything Comedy Central has to offer. Despite of all your self-righteous aphorisms, in the end you are no different or worse than the very people you harbor suspicions towards or despise.

[AuthenticAndrew]

After 8 years of what I can only think of calling an excersize in unfiltered cronyism, the country has set itself up for these new extremes. I'm in the tax bracket that will feel the pinch but hey if helps make the US a competitve country once again I'm all for picking up the tab.

[nick]

Obama will get no money w/out permission from congress. That's that. He will probably get lots of what he wants because this country is in such a mess and he is so capable communicating his ideas on how to fix it. If he's successful, it is not imposing his will, it's leadership. The conservatives had their chance, chucks.

[meow]

"lived within their means, made sound business choices, sound investments, saved money, & adhered to the law"

Sounds like most of my progressive liberal friends! Too bad we still lost out to to the power hungry wall street brokers, corrupt mortgage lending practices, and high risk taking bankers - Not my buddies. We like our little bungalows and gardens and aren't living in mega mansions. Just trying to hang on to a modest life.

[Saigon66]

"unfiltered cronyism," Good way to put it, Andrew. Nice to have a prez who can speak to the people. He goes to them over the heads of Washington. I like to feel like the gubmint and the folks are closer to one and the same. The fatcats had their day for a while. Our turn.
As career Army I thought I'd seen squandering of military resources. What I saw (I retired in 2000) was chicken food compared with what was to come.

[sparky]

gaed, now I know see what happens when you injest mushrooms on an empty stomach.

[Nevets]

AA, I didnt know flipping burgers and serving french fries could earn you so much dough. I think I'm in the wrong job. Maybe time for new career. Micky "D's" here I come.

[Nevets]

"As career Army I thought I'd seen squandering of military resources."

Now thats its your turn as you say saigon66, will you just turn your head and look away this time around too.

[woody held]

I expect the pattern might go something like this: Obama & Pelosi way-overreach, running up giga-deficits and not solving the recession.

Unemployment goes over 10% and investment markets tank as everyone rushes to hedge against expected inflation that mega-deficits bring.

Repubs take back the house in 2010 but use the Obama spree as an excuse to go on an even bigger spree of their own.

Bottom line: we are screwed. I am putting my investments into any companies offering chinese language instruction.

[AuthenticAndrew]

I think rolling back the tax cuts to "Clinton era levels" will more than adequately cover the costs of nearly everything and potentialy run the budget into a surplus.

I don't believe the economic theory that says giving tax relief to the wealthiest Americans spurs the economy, and that the myth is propogated by afformentioned cronies that benefit from the notion that it does. I can't blame the mega rich for not wanting to pay millions in taxes, it's just business, but we as voters have to make sure they ulitmately do.

[Habu]

Who creates jobs AA?

[jaonie]

why, McDonalds of course!

[Oregon Coast]

Woody Held, you may be on to something...

[AuthenticAndrew]

"Who creates jobs AA?"

People who earn over 250k a year don't create jobs any more or less than people who make less than that - unless you referring to illegal immigrants working as house keepers.

All things being equal, there's no difference between a rich guy buying a $3000 plazma and three average Joe's buying $1000 LCDs. The money all winds up in the same place in the end.

What I do for a living creates jobs for others, but the size of my paycheck doesn't directly cause anyone else to lose or gain a job.

But suppose someone loses their job because I'm not eating out as often; isn't it better that they receive a new job doing something for the public rather than waiting on people like me? I hope they get rehired in the health industry, helping people stay healthy rather than having them resort to Emergency Room health care.

[Nevets]

Hey Puts check out these two posts from AA...

"I'm in the tax bracket that will feel the pinch but hey if helps make the US a competitve country once again I'm all for picking up the tab."

Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | February 27, 2009 at 12:37 PM

and

"isn't it better that they receive a new job doing something for the public rather than "waiting" on people like me?"

Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | February 27, 2009 at 09:25 PM

It only took 9 hours for AA to go from being rich to being back to "waiting" tables for a living. 9 hours. Imagine what he could accomplish in 10 hours.

[Puget Sound]

nevets
that is too funny.
maybe AA was looking at his parents tax return and got a little confused...

[Chuckvsteeleii]

Maybe he is good and gets generous tips Nevets.

[Puget Sound]

hey, i don't care how good he is when you're serving french fries it can't be that much...
plus, he can't work late during the school week.

[AuthenticAndrew]

Waiters "wait" on customers; I am a customer, you idiot.

Can someone please explain how giving the tax cuts to the rich creates jobs when it's a fact that lower income people spend a greater percentage of their budget than do the rich? Doesn't government spending also create jobs in the form of public works contracts and services?

[Chuckvsteeleii]

What the rich guys don't spend, they invest. They invest in stuff that creates jobs for us low life peons. They invest in places that loan us the money to buy stuff that other people get paid to make. Shit, then those other people buy more stuff.
Then the gummint steps in an fucks it all up.
Then the republicans come in and fix it and then we re-cycle.

[Puget Sound]

...who do you think creates and employs those lower wage workers?

chucks, you're a private sector fellow. you ever been employed by a poor person? now, after the business went south the owner can become a poor person but that's a different story.

anyway AA, stimulus spending isn't helpful in the long term. why? the government has to get the money from some source. Every dollar the government spends has to come from either taxing or borrowing, or deliberately causing inflation.

[AuthenticAndrew]

That doesn't make any sense. If low income people buy goods and services then someone has to get paid to make the product or provide the service. Why don't we cut that "rich people invest yada yada" out of the equation?

If I recall correctly, investment doesn't spur the economy as directly as consumption. After the 9-11 Bush told Americas to go buy a car, not to stuff their money in bonds.

When the government mails out stimulus checks they hope the recipients will spend the money, not save it, and it's no coincidence that lower income people get larger stimulus checks even though the wealthy technicly deserve it more because they paid more. They know who will spend the money immediately and most effectively.

[Steve Bolger]

They invest in off shore companies where more of their money avoids taxation altogether.

[AuthenticAndrew]

Say for example you give rich people money and they invest it in a telecom, so the telecom supposedly now hires people with their new found capital, but who buys the cell phones? The poor people can't afford it because you gave all the money to rich people. If you had given the money to the poorer people they would buy the cell phone and the telecom and its investors would still receive the money buy way of the cash register.

What is the point in investing in anything if you don't have customers?

Rich people get rich by not letting go of their money. The whole notion that they are the gateway to a strong economy is just a PR campaign that they fund.

[Puget Sound]

...but when the gov't borrows vast amounts of money it has to either tax more to pay for the debt it incurred or print more money which spurs inflation.

either way is bad news for working folk.

seriously, read milton friedman. it will change your life.

[Nevets]

What your missing AA is that without investment there is no product or services. Using your Telecom analogy, if the rich didnt invest in the company, how is the telecom company going to hire employees to make the cell phones to sell. Hey I think the guy in the corner wants a refill.

[Coiler]

And the guy with the missing teeth wants a Hitler cake, ok?

[AuthenticAndrew]

The telecom would take out a loan obviously. Don't hurt yourself idiot.

[Nevets]

"The telecom would take out a loan obviously"

And you call me an idiot. Take out a loan. LOL.

AA, Which bank today would lend any money on an idea without some sort of backing by investors. We are in a credit crunch remember.

[Chuckvsteeleii]

Who would the telecom borrow the money from? The poor smuck that spends every dollar he gets?

[Puget Sound]

...ah, it all seems so easy when you have little idea of how life or business works.

AA, talk to your supervisor he may be able to clue you in.

and go to the school library they must have some milton friedman material.

yes the stimulus was supposed to spur consumer consumption but it was a stimulus. short term. if consumers do not have jobs they won't spend the stimulus and instead will save it (which is what is happening).
to get real sustainable jobs you need small business to start hiring. for small business to be able to do so you need private capital aka the money of rich people or banks that have money to lend to credit worthy people.

if gov't alone could cure unemployment it could easily hire everyone and thus end unemployment. everyone would have a job. they tried something like that in eastern europe and it didn't work so well. the chinese are successful in growing their economy because they a private sector element to it.

AA, what you really need is to spend some time with Chucks on his job or maybe see if Duffman who is a small businessman will hire you to work for him as a summer intern. It would be an education for you.

Duff's, would you hire AA this summer?

[AuthenticAndrew]

Dave Ross is talking to someone now who takes the POV of the pro-rich poor guy and Ross is soundly defeating the caller's poor reasoning.

[AuthenticAndrew]

In response to assorted retards above; a company can take out a loan just like a normal person, and use that loan to further its business goals. The money that banks loan out comes from a variety of depositors, not just wealthy Americans.

As for the idea that a bank will not lend money to a company that doesn't have investors; whether a bank does or doesn't lend money has no relation to it's investor status. The bank only cares about the business' assetts and earning potential because that will determine their ability to recover the money. Small businesses loans are given to small businesses that have no investors to speak of.

It's this simple, if you give people money they will spend it. If the wealthy retain their money the money will not be spent, it will pool up in places that don't promote productivity. Wealthy people want to retain their money because it gives them power and control, they don't honestly care what happens to anyone else.

It's in their best interest to sweet talk the middle class into forfeiting their share. You suckers are buying what they are selling.

Dave Ross said it well; middle class wage isn't keeping up with middle class productivity. The middle class desrves more credit than it is being given.

Thankfully Obama was elected. We can discuss this again in four years and see how this unfolds.

[love the Young Turks]

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Wall Street compensation system has evolved from the 1970s, when most of the firms were private partnerships, owned by partners who paid out a designated share of the firm's profits to nonpartner employees while dividing up the rest for themselves. The nonpartners had to earn their keep every year, but the partners' percentage ownerships in the firms were also reset every year or two. On the whole, everyone's performance was continuously evaluated and rewarded or penalized. The system provided great incentives to create profits, but also, because the partners' own money was involved, to avoid great risk."

These days, the way executives make money instead is in the form of bonuses for years where they bring in a lot of return (and often times for years they don't), but the threat of being fired for too much risk taking is minimal. The more risk you take, the more money everyone makes. And it's not the partner's money you're playing with anymore. You're playing with house money. No one is minding the store anymore.

Now think about it this way: if you were going to make ten million dollars in bonuses for taking high risks with other people's money, would you do it? The answer invariably is - hell yes!

If it's your own money on the line, you might be extraordinarily careful with the risk you take. But if you are going to get a multi-million dollar reward for taking risks, but you expose your company to a little bit more risk, what percentage of people would take that extra risk on behalf of their company? I would venture to guess 98%.

And the other 2% are suckers. There is no downside for you. The higher the risk, the higher the return in the short-run (which actually lasted a long time) and the higher your take home salary is. Are you going to be the only guy on Wall Street saying, "Well, golly gee willikers, everyone else is making millions but I really care about my shareholders. I don't want that huge bonus. I want safe investments for my company."? That's not how human nature works.

So, now we have Tim Geithner and the rest of Treasury working so hard to prop up not just these failed banks - but these failed bank executives - because we don't want government running these large companies. The self-interest of the market will do a better job of managing these companies. But it hasn't - because of this fundamental flaw.

These executives did not actually fail. They succeeded wildly. It's just that they had a different goal - to take home as much money as they possibly could for themselves. Mission accomplished!

I don't blame them. The system is set up wrong. Almost anyone in their position would have done the same - and will continue to do the same as long as we are foolish enough to keep pouring money into these companies. They are going to try to move every nickel they can from our pockets into theirs.

The Treasury plan is all wrong. We have to first acknowledge that the boards of these companies are not truly representing the shareholders. They are largely friends with most of the CEOs and they do not have an incentive to reign in out of control compensation for the top executives. Then those CEOs pass on the wrong incentives to the executives below them. The more risk they all take, the more money they take home. And if their company goes broke one day - who cares?

Most of these guys took home millions upon millions of dollars already for profits that never really existed. If the company goes under, okay the gravy train came to an end but they still have all the money they made from all those years. It's in their personal bank accounts. That's enlightened self-interest!

Do you know that last year, as Merrill Lynch was in its death throes, 696 executives got bonuses over a million dollars? 696! As the company lost tens of billions of dollars, the executives took home a combined $3.6 billion that year. Billions in bonuses in the worst year in the company's history. They're not stupid; they're smart. They're looting the store before the cops show up.

This is the financial equivalent of the federal government not showing up to rescue people after Hurricane Katrina. Last year the five biggest Wall Street securities firms lost $25.3 billion. The executives at those companies still took home $26 billion in bonuses. In other words, they wouldn't have lost a nickel if they hadn't taken any bonuses.

Do you think if the guys up at the top still owned the companies they would allow their employees to take home $26 billion in bonuses when they lost $25 billion that year? Self-interest would never allow that. But now no one is looking over their shoulder.

So who cares what the company loses? Take the money while you still can. The Treasury Department still hasn't shown up to take over these looted stores. In fact, they keep pouring taxpayer money into these same shops, as the money continues to move out the back door. Tim Geithner is the worst sheriff in the world.

[Gregory]

Funny comments about how we should buys guns NOW before this BASTARD prez outlaws them all....do you still believe he was born in Africa, or have you turned the channel away from FOX ?