Beck's Orlando revival brings the (fiscal) pain
March 28, 2010 9:19 pm ET by Will Bunch
Glenn Beck came to Orlando this weekend and staged a day-long American Revival for 8,000 die-hard fanatics that was intended to focus on the themes of "faith, hope, and charity" but made clear that the right-wing media icon's upcoming much-ballyhooed plan for America involves something else: Pain.
The Fox News Channel host - who's called his American Revival tour a run-up to a massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in August and a book with a "100-year plan" for the nation this fall - told the nearly sold-out University of Central Florida basketball arena that in about two weeks he'll unveil an expert-devised "budget for the United States of America."
And that plan, Beck added, would have two major components, starting with what he admitted would be a "massive" cut in federal spending, on the order of 40-50 percent. But while most conservative political chatter since the start of the Obama administration has focused on deficit reduction, Beck said the flip side of his scheme would be large-scale tax reductions to a rate of about 12 percent - which he claimed would encourage investment and growth.
"We're going to develop the way out for the United States of America," Beck said to loud whoops. "Before you clap, realize that I'm going to piss of almost every single person in America. Because we can't afford all the stuff and that means all of us are going to lose something that we love."
The fact that a talk-show host is unveiling his own budget proposal is quite a commentary on the state of conservative politics in 2010 -- and it wasn't the only news that Beck made at the seven-hour arena event, where the self-proclaimed "Howard Beale" wannabe wept on several occasions and repeatedly called for injecting God into the political arena.
Frequently accused of relying on apocalyptic fear-mongering to build ratings and get attention, Beck provided details of the fictional political thriller that he's planning to publish in June -- called The Overton Window, according to online catalogue listings -- that will do little to dispel those complaints, as the tome will portray America sliding into a civil war.
"It's a story of America at time much like today where the people are confused and they're being lied to and they're not sure what's right-side-up and upside-down," Beck said. "And there's one part...there's a group of people that plays a role called the Founders Keepers...This leads to a battle and a civil war, and life is upside down planet-wide. There's a group of people that just won't give up."
On Saturday, Beck continued to weave his characteristic apocalyptic warnings in between a series of self-help-flavored anecdotes and repeated appeals to religious faith.
"If we don't face the truth right now, we'll be dead in five years -- this country can't survive," he said at one point. During his keynote speech, Beck also advised his fans to stockpile food. "I am incredibly prepared," he said.
The audience was typical of a large Beck fan gathering -- predominantly over 50 and white and heavy on retirees, the jobless and military veterans, or the kind of people who now often receive government benefits like Medicare or unemployment checks that would likely get hammered if policymakers actually listened to Beck's budget scheme. In an odd appeal to the heavily middle-class gathering -- many of whom spent $120 for lower-level seats -- the FNC host confided that some of his fiscal ideas come with conversations with friends who are billionaires.
Said Beck in explaining the rationale for massive tax cuts on top of spending reductions:
What's happening right now at the global level is I have friends who are billionaires who say I don't know what to do with their money to preserve the wealth. 'I don't know what to do with it. Do I buy gold or do I not buy gold? Do I buy inflation protected treasury bonds?' These are people who deal in billions of dollars and they have no idea.... There are billions and billions and billions of dollars looking for the answer. The answer is and always has been America, but we have to convince them and the rest of the world that we're serious about our debt and spitting ourselves out of this system.
Clearly stung by a wave of accusations that right-wing radio and Fox News are ginning up death threats and potential violence against members of Congress and progressives, Beck also expanded on a new theme that resistance to what he claims is growing socialism in America must be non-violent -- again invoking Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King.
"Get God on your side, and then pick up a hammer," Beck said. Quoting Gandhi, he took the hammer to an anvil onstage and said "with non-violence, take your hammer and POUND that truth every day and everything that doesn't fit, toss it out! We have the truth...[W]ith non-violence, be the anvil of truth every single day!"
Most of the attendees were eager to voice their resentments at the portrayal of Beck fans as either racist or as capable of violence -- but many of them clearly feel rage toward the Obama administration.
Perhaps none more so than 71-year-old Phillis Kluft, who raised four kids as a single mom in East Haven, Connecticut, and moved six years ago to The Villages, Fla., a retiree-laden epicenter of Beckmania where she now is a leader of the Tri-County Tea Party of Florida. Kluft said she believes that supporters of President Barack Obama want Washington are mainly seeking handouts.
"I saved money for my old age and didn't go on a vacation or buy a new car," she said, her voice rising in intensity. "It really galls me that these people sit on their ass and expect other people to take care of them!," the grandmother said, then adding to whoops of approval in Section 107, "I am so disgusted with this Obama bullshit!"
Indeed, much of Beck's American Revival was just plain revival, with Beck playing the role of Billy Graham or the fictional Elmer Gantry, depending on your view of the divisive political entertainer.
"Faith gives us an opportunity to start all over again," said Beck, who at one point spoke sprawled out on the floor of the stage, reenacting his lowest moment with the bottle. Before the lunch break, a fan -- later reported to be OK -- in the upper deck fell and required medical attention, and as doctors in the house raced to the spot, Beck and economic commentator David Buckner led the throng in a softly sung "Amazing Grace." It was a moment he reenacted when he took the stage for his keynote, choking back copious tears as he said, "I love you guys."

















There are two things we can do. One, pretend there is no problem, continue to grow the debt, and hope that we don't end up like Spain or Greece. Two, we realize the folly of continual debt growth and do something to pay it down. The ONLY WAY TO PAY IT DOWN is something like Beck is suggesting. Pain. The things that are necessary to pay down the debt will take great sacrifice from everybody in this country. There is no other way to solve the debt problem. Period. And if you don't solve the debt problem then we will eventually be finished as a country.
Now, despite the reality of what I just said, go ahead and bring on the insults and thumbs down.
If you don't like that option, remember what Beck taught about pain.
Pain? With large-scale tax reductions to a rate of about 12 percent? Sounds more like Becky's trying to sell relief, albeit in the form of snake oil.
"magCynic said: " Now, despite the reality of what I just said, go ahead and bring on the insults and thumbs down."
pete5921 said; "In other words, you're just trolling, and I don't make accusations of trolling unless there's form of admission, such as your last sentence."
LOL! Damn straight Pete! Kudos on a great post, I was about to say the exact same thing but you beat me to the post!
I believe that it will include spending cuts and tax increases. The same would apply to entitlement program reforms to make them solvent. It is a reality. I would pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction. Spending cuts are more complicated as they will inflict pain that is more specific and devastating to individuals and harder to spread out their impact. Sooner or later the words need to come from our leaders. And they likely will be punished for it when they do.
The private sector that does the bulk of business with the government (contractors) are going to have to sacrifice some profits too. Is any company or corporation willing to share the pain? Will our neo-liberal economics be able to adapt?
If you follow my link, you must read "The Washington Consensus" near the bottom. It is the template for the 2008 financial crisis.
Tell me how a person who is trying to get elected sells this product to his constituents.
It will be interesting to see (yeah, I know this is nut job Beck we're talking about) how you cut 40 or 50% of the federal budget without a 40 or 50% cut of defense, because if you leave defense alone obviously there's NOTHING left. That's not how Ron Paul (also nuts) would do it.
Besides, by this definition, one of the leading "troll hunters" here is a "troll."
The problem is the TROLL POSTS that are replied to. The fact that they might come back under another screen name and continue to make troll posts doesn't mean anything - it's their POSTS that need to be ignored.
How is it that this has been explained to you countless times yet you still don't get it?
I don't flood this site with excessive posts. Replying to someone is not the same as flooding a site. I only "attack" behavior. I don't attack ANY posters, so you're wrong there too. And I don't make myself the saviour. I make my BEHAVIOR, behavior that others can and DO emulate, the saving grace of ignoring trolls.
So, no, these characteristics don't fit me. But thanks for again providing evidence that your kneejerk reactions and personal animus don't allow you to be a fair person WRT me.
There IS no problem except the fact that you and one or two other self styled (and self important) "troll busters" would prefer that the only comments made in these comment threads were of the me-too me-too variety. Some people disagree, some more intelligently than others. Because you disagree with someone or don't think their disagreement is well considered or thought out, does not make them a troll. This is NOT a fourth grade classroom where someone who is disagreeing or disagreeable needs to be slapped down and quieted so they don't waste the limited amount of classroom time available. If people want to engage others in discussion generated from the original articles, even if that discussion moves in a natural way and often morphs from the original narrowly focused beginnings, then so be it and who on Earth do you think you are to limit that discussion to what YOU deem is appropriate.
If you don't like a post, or the thread that it splits off from the original discussion, then for heaven's sakes exercise a little self control and just don't read it.
Do we need to cut spending? Sure. Curtail it, at least. But we'll need to RAISE taxes as well. And doing those together WILL hamper the economy (doubly so) and thus should not be done until the economy is on some damned strong footing. In the meantime, deficit spending is what's going to get it there.
You can't fix the deficit without harming the economy, and anything the government does to help the economy will increase the deficit. This is a ECONOMIC and FISCAL FACT and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. What's more, lowering both taxes and spending IN UNISON will still cause net HARM to the economy. So Beck's plan will HARM the economy and be DEFICIT NEUTRAL at best.
Nice plan, poindexter. Why don't you just try praying. THAT might help. </sarcasm> This "plan" is about rich people grabbing and keeping more money, nothing more. It won't help the country one, miscroscopic, bit.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerley,
Niceguy Eddie
MBA, U of M, with honors.
(I've stated that just to contrast to Mr. Beck who graduted from Immaculate Conception Catholic School - with a HS Dimploma.)
Is it just me, or does he look and sound like he'd smell like Scotch? It's like he always just came from the bar! Plus, every time he opens his mouth, he actually makes his own party and positions and policies sound WORSE.
I LOVE THAT GUY!
----------------------------------------------------
LOL
MBA, Harvard Business School
John W Snow
PH.D Economics
Univ of Virginia
Henry Paulson
MBA, HArvard Business School
So you are implying a college degree makes you smarter and more capable than Glen Beck. Well in that case, George Bush, John Snow, and Henry PAulson are all smarter than YOU. Harvard is a far better school than the U of M. Your creditials don't mean a thing. College degrees are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and they certainly don't imply you are smarter than someone else because you have one. Liberal Elitism-a college education makes you better than someone else, you are delusional.
Furthermore, this is an article about Glenn Beck, who has no known economic training at all. Why are you straying from the topic, only to point out the horrible example of Bush?
I was simply pointing out that by Niceguy's own comparison, each of those I listed, are smarter than Niceguy, including George W Bush. Thanks for your comment though.
The records show that Bush was not possessed of a great, or even average, intellect (at least compared to other presidents), in economics or anything else. When Eddie puts together coherent sentences, he's already demonstrated he's smarter than Bush.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe you're smarter than Bush as well, not that that's saying very much.
I'm not sure which U of M nice was talking about. But if you notice HArvard is considered #1.
This is from the Financial Times ranking of MBA programs.
In this case, Harvard was ranked 3rd. Despite president Bush's father, it is still quite the accomplishment.
Like I said, I'm not sure what U of M Nice went to, but Harvard is still the best of the best. I can't disregard Bush's constant propensity to look a fool in the public spotlight. However, Niceguy wasn't comparing public speaking or conveying a message to an audience, he was comparing education credentials, and in his own humble opinion, Bush is smarter than him.
I don't have to be "smarter" than Beck to know he's WRONG.
But, yes, I WILL take the word of a PhD or Master's Degree holder over the word of the average HS Graduate ANY DAY. It's not about being "smarter" it's about being "educated."
Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. My Degree only suggests that I have been taught, and my Grades only imply that I learned a thing or two from it. Beck's position, OTOH, is one of ignorance. Whether his ignorance is the result of circumstance or choice matters very little to me, because the point remians: he's wrong on his basic facts.
PhD's can be proven wrong, as can I - both in fact happen all the time. But that takes more WORK, and more KNOWLEDGE, than is required to disproove the raving of a nimrod like Beck. His understanding of economics is about that of your average high schooler. And the last time I checked, Macroeconomics was not a required course for a HS diploma. The words he says and the policies he espouse are crafted by others who are far more knowledgible, yet no more altruistic, than he is.
He didn't get a TV show because of his vast wealth of knowledge. He was given the show because powerful people with a certain agenda found that he could be PERSUASIVE. And while that made him useful, it doesn't make him RIGHT. You're a good example of this: He has pursuaded you to believe that which is, in fact, WRONG. (And can, in fact, be proven thus.) And he has done this because it serves the purpose of the people who sign his paycheck.
----------------------------------------------
It's that simple.
"You're putting words in my mouth. 'Round here we call that a strawman."
Not at all, your lack of clarification left one to interpret your point. (However, a nimrod, is definitely considered as a stupid person. So you are still sending mixed messages.)
As far as Beck being wrong on "HIS BASIC FACTS", his Ideas are not new, nor are they fanciful creations of his own mind. They are based on the basic priciples of capatilism, Friedman, Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Mills.
Beck hasn't suggested anything that hasn't been suggested before, he has not introduced any new philosophy, or any incorrect philosophy. What he has prosed is a radical fix to what he sees as the greatest calamity facing the United States.
Perhaps it would work, perhaps it won't. I can tell yo for a fact that what we are doing now is completely unsustainable. Depsite Geithner's proclamation that the U.S. economy is invincible. (That is stpudity, not ignorance.)
"You can't fix the deficit without harming the economy, and anything the government does to help the economy will increase the deficit."
Beck understands that cutbacks and reduced government intervention will be difficult and the economy would retract and has said as much. He agrees with you, and you with him actually. He wants the government to stop trying to fix the economy and increasing the deficit.
You seem to think that putting everything on a credit card until we get a better job is better than, cutting expenses. Keep the cable, keep the internet, keep the cell phone, keep the Mercedes, we still have AMEX, Discover, and Visa lending us money. Unfortunately there isn't likely to be a job that will pay enough to ever pay back the bills.
Beck and I would agree that deficit spending is necessary sometimes. That time has now passed.
1) You reduce your deficit reduction to almost nothing. So... what's the point?
2) The ecocnomy will still not GROW as a result unless the tax reduction is larger than the spending reduction, and THAT will INCREASE the deficit. So, again... WHAT'S THE POINT?
THAT'S what makes it WRONG, and what makes all the pain he's proposing POINTLESS.
Why do you people never wnat to consider going back to a Clinton-era level of taxation? I don't recal the economy being stifeld then
Why not end the two wars we're in? Bring the troops home? Why not cut DEFENSE spending? You could save billions there whilest sausing far less economic harm, and having far less impact of large numbers of people's lives, than cutting other things would.
And what's WRONG with the Gov't investing in the economy? Why is cutting taxes for econmic stimulus reason any less of a vice than spending for the same reason? (Aside for the fact that you get more bang for your buck with spending, that is!) Green Energy could be as tranformative for Obama's economy as the Internet was for Clintons. You don't get anywhere if you do nothing but serve the entrenched interests and the status quo.
So you're right: Beck's ideas are not new. (Which is pretty much as I said.) They're the same ineffective RW garbage that's been kicked around for awhile now.
There's a REASON the gov't doesn't want to cut spending - or raise taxes, for that matter: They're not in the CAUSING PAIN business. Are we sustainable? No way. I agree iwth you 100% there. But cutting spending and CUTTING taxes won't help anything. If you want to cut spending and RAISE taxes? FINE. That will cause MORE PAIN, but at least it will accomplish something, in terms of the deficit and debt.
But... as I said: get the economy on REALLY SOLID FOOTING first. (Which is the LAST THING the Republicans want to have happen, BTW!)
----------------------------------------
Clinton had it all figured out and Bush screwed it all up. I'm sorry, but it's pretty hard to dispute that.
As for President BUSH? Puh-lease. If my daddy was a U.S. Senator, CIA Director, Diplomat, Future VICE-PRESIDENT and FUTURE PRESIDENT, etc... I would have gone to Harvard and Yale as well. Unlike Bush, I had to EARN my way, and WORK for it. Also unlike like Bush I graduated at the top of my class. C's from Harvard are NOT worth more than A's from U-Mich. They just COST more. If Bush (or his economic theories) was worth a damn, would you mind explaining what the hell happened to the economy during his eight years in office? The 'good times' didn't even make it halfway through his second term. Real "long term" visionary, that one!
And BTW, that's not a "college degree," it's a GRADUATE (MASTER'S) DEGREE. If you think that's been so devalued that it's somehow worth no more that Glenn Beck's HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA...? Well... I wish you lots of luck in whatever entrepreneurial venutres you pursue, becuase you sure as hell won't get very far working for anyone else for a living!
------------------------------------------------------
"Liberal / Elite / Education" Bashing = Typical Conservative celebration of ignorance.
What he was saying is don't think just because you are college educated that your smarter than others. After all, it is people with attitudes just like yours that put the USA in the spot that it's in today. What a great job they all did. Our founders on the other hand, self educated for the most part. Mostly farmers that liked to read. And I would argue that they created the best form of government the world has ever seen. They at least created the longest and most stable government in world history.
Market Watch on Paulson. Paulson may have been key in the bailout of big banks, but it was a last resort. Paulson's bailout was much different than Obama's.
"I'm arguing with YOU and with MISTER BECK - both of whom have shown that they have little to no grasp of economic and fiscal reality."
Really now? Do you work for Ford Eddie?
Huh? WTH is that supposed to mean?
-------------------------------------------
???
I was curious, you say you work for the Auto industry, and I wanted to know if it was for Ford.
Beck's maniacal appeal for absolute power is based on the same old snake oil Ray-gun used. Trickle down economics that have proved time and again not to work at all. The real solution is not to cut taxes by using this regressive form of taxation, which only rewards the wealthiest and punishes the poorest. Rather the solution is to repeal the Ray-gun tax cuts. Increase the tax rates to at least 50% for the top income earners. Those who make over $3 million per year should pay that rate, and the loop-holes that allow billionaires like Donald Trump to claim he only makes $20,000 per year, should be eliminated. Raise the revenues to fund the government and pay down the debt and then you have a healthy and thriving economy. That was how it was in the 50's and 60's.
When Clinton raised taxes in the early 90's, he set the country on a track that created the longest peace-time expansion in history, created 23 million new jobs, reduced crime and poverty, and began a sustained decline in the deficits until for the last three years of his second administration the national debt was not only going down, but on a path that would have eliminated it entirely by 2016. Had that been done, we would have saved $300 billion per year in interest payments to foreign banks. If you feel as though you have been insulted, that's probably because sometimes the truth just hurts.
Most comments are from people who support socialsim whether they believe it or not, or just do not understand the term.
Cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts is stimulative. That's good old Keynesian economics at work. It's not the most effective way to stimulate the economy, but it works.
This is a rare find -- a conservative that expresses an interest in reality. Being completely wrong is secondary.
Bush's tax cuts cratered revenue at under 2 trillion until his second term, when revenue climbed to 2.5 trillion before Bush's economy cratered it again.
By contrast, tax-raising Clinton's revenue climbed steadily from 1.1 trillion to 2 trillion throughout his presidency.
Im not in this group, but I, like probably every single one of you, wish I was, my question is.. how much more do you want them to give?
And those making AGI of 66K and above paid 86% of all income taxes. How do you people sleep at night knowing what horrendous parasites you have become to people who actually produce something in this country?
And finally, I stand corrected 2004-2006 represented a 20 percent revenue increase, the largest since 1965, not the largest ever, but good enough to understand that tax cuts do not increase the deficit, spending does.
Trickle down economics don't work either.
And deficit spending is sometimes necessary and prudent, and when Obama has done it so far, it has been.
When Bush did it, it was stupid and illogical.
So, where were the Tea Party people during Bush's campaign if it's really about irrational gov't spending?
The economy is actually a pretty easy thing to get. It's just that some people want to feel like they know more and get off on feeling bigger than others by using big words. This economy is largely a small business economy and if you do your research you will find that most are not college educated but yet they are what makes our economy go. I guess Mr. Gates is a HUGE failure.....
PROVE that tax cuts have NEVER raised revenue.... You can't and you can't "debunk" it with anything but shill mmfa talking points... PROOF.
When Bush did it, it WORKED, EXCEPT for the INCREASED SPENDING BY BOTH PARTIES.
WELL you are RIGHT. It's about IRRATIONAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING, like the faux health care "reform"....
How can you even rationalize yourself anymore?
So, teabaggers, get a d@mn job and quit sponging off the rest of us...
*groan* We did that already. Not to quite such a lunatic level, but we did that. Real recently, too. Where was all the investment and growth in 2003? Where the hell did it go? We also did the opposite, real recently. Unemployment fell through the floor.
This is probably a Rush-esque boast, but if we try supply-side theory one more time, I'm leaving the country. Democracy doesn't work if everyone refuses to point an occasional brain cell towards the past.
"a 'massive' cut in federal spending, on the order of 40-50 percent"
Please, please, list those cuts in great detail. Perhaps then a few people will start to see why we can't balance the budget on spending cuts. Because millions of poor people actually need the stuff that government spends money on.
"take your hammer and POUND that truth every day"
Does that philosophy have five minutes to spare to take a quick glance at reality? You know, just to check if the truth is true or not? Or is that less important than the pounding?
I can't take this.
You can be sure of one thing: It won't come out of the defense budget.
"what would keep him (and many others) from moving their 'empires' off-shore in this age of global communications, global economics, etc"
I assume the same incentive exists with taxes at 40%, which they're going to be real soon.
There will be some that move off-shore at 40% (depending on state and local tax burdens on top of that), but I feel the "incentive" to go off-shore will grow exponentially as the rates go up.
We can talk about the 90% top marginal rates of the 60s, but there were few if any actual taxpayers paying those rates, for many reasons.
But it'll be much easier to crunch the numbers after we're at a state of basic sanity than now.
Go back to school and get an education, Beck.
Yea...I'm going to listen to a lecture about how to fix the economy from from some insane alcoholic sprawled out on the floor re-enacting his lowest moment. For Beck's child-like followers here's a good description of Beck:
Tent show E N T E R T A I N E R...
<sarcasm>
America Prevails! ^^
America Prevails! ^^
We can be pretty damned certain he's not going to suggest making any cuts to Defense or Social Security--and those two items account for a little more than $1.3 trillion of the $3.5 trillion 2010 budget. So, to meet the 40% low end of his federal spending costs he'd have to pull $1.4 trillion from the remaining $2.1 trillion.
So, what gets the axe, Glenny? Do tell.
He thinks he has teh Dream.
I think he's just an adult baby with a bad case of the colic.
Of course, I seriously doubt we'll see any actual numbers from Beck.
Granted, I'm no economist. My experience in that arena is limited to paying my bills and balancing my checkbook. And I, much like our country, have been hit hard by a decline in revenues coming in and an increase in expenses going out.
But I think that grants me an insight that can be shared by just about everyone who does not fall into this nation's highest tax brackets. How many of us could possibly manage a 40% cut in the spending we do for ourselves and our families without losing essentials?
Oh, I'm pretty certain this "plan" is more of Beck's brand of bluster and anticipate that it will, on paper, follow in the recently established Republican procedure of offering economic plans that have been cut and pasted from the business plans of the South Park Underwear Gnomes. Nevertheless, given how we've seen so many new Mad Hatters spring forth from a year of Tea Parties screaming about how Obama's taxing them to death after they've received tax cuts, I'm a tad concerned this might be seen as "legitimate" by far too many.
The self-described rodeo clown has bought into his own blather.
No longer content to rake in millions by keeping the rubes entertained, this monumental dullard now thinks he's actually bright.
And who do we see right on top, slavishly following the drooling idiot king... MagTwit (why am I not surprised).
MagTwit, you are even more stupid than I thought.
But here's the reality check---Becky can write all the books he wants, come up with all the moronic theories his flashbacking fried brain can conjure, but he has no power to make any of it real.
But, as always, it's lovely to have a multi-millionaire pontificate on what others should do.
We are one messed up culture.
I am in total agreement with you regarding the Beck-clone.
Excuse me?
These people are looney. They believe a huckster like Beck and all that comes out of his mouth like he was God and do not question his insane ideas and 7hours of nonstop Beck ego.
These people are simply nuts.
Now if Corporations are like people when donating large amounts to candidates, I would expect Beck to recommend that these Peocorps sacrifice approx. 12%. Now what are the chances of that happening??? About 12%
Beck, run for office and quit hiding behind Fox News. Come on Glenn, you can make a difference. Go to Washington and bring your chalk board and your little boys who laugh at your jokes. You know the guys you have laughing in the background on your shows..those little eraserboys.
Do these people know how much Beck makes while telling them he's an everyman? One of them?
That line alone makes it impossible to talk any sense into Beck's followers.
It's a wasted effort to try to educate the willfully ignorant.
Like many of his ilk, Glenn Beck speaks with all of the self assuredness of the truly ignorant.
It takes a certain type of ignorance to think that you have all of the answers and that nobody else has a clue. Whilst ignorance may be bliss, that bliss is merely transitory until reality catches up in an undeniably brutal fashion e.g. Global Financial Crisis.
As George Santayana wrote, "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Beck and co. have neither the retentiveness nor the wit and the wisdom to learn from the past.
It isn't theft if you have the government do it for you. What a great country! God bless the U.S.A.!!!
I want tax increases on the rich, but I don't want a free car. Is it logically possible for me to hold both those positions at the same time? Study hard.
He's mad at the guy in the "nice" car next to him in traffic.
What he doesn't understand is that the guy probably way overpaid for a P.O.S. car that spends more time in the shop than on the road, all to drive a car with a certain "name" on it.
Worst of all he spends way more on the stupid car than what he can really afford in monthly payments and it gets crap for gas milage.
Yeah, I'm jealous of him too. (not)
MMFA always insinuating racism. Rage towards Obama doesn't equate racism. Twisty.
We are on the road to financial ruin. The 'income redistribution' or 'social justice' or 'robin hood' agenda of this administration is deepening, not reversing, the financial mess that Bush got us into.
How do we fix it? All I hear from the left is 'tax the rich'. All I hear from the right is 'lower taxes to spur economic growth'.
If we dont reverse course quickly...we are setting ourselves up for the end of America as we know it. From Medicade Part D, to stimulus packages, to social security to health care, to cash for clunkers to bailouts and now quickly moving on to immigration reforms foreclosure protections and ultra extended unemployment benefits, it isnt sustainable. Our debt is to high and by adding entitlements we are creating obligations that we can no longer afford. We do need to dramatically scale back entitlements, such as raising the minimum age for collecting social security. We do need to cut back on the size and scope of government. Did you know that DC is virtually the only city in America not enduring a recession?
Does it make any difference to you that one of those is objectively better than the other?
"We do need to cut back on the size and scope of government."
In due time, but deficit reduction ideas need to be sorted in order of impact and desirability:
1) fix the economy. All the hyperventilation about the deficit started with that giant meteor Bush lobbed against the economy a couple years ago.
2) raise taxes on the rich. A giant impact on the deficit without the slightest downside. (Please cite reality when disagreeing with that.)
3) stop paying double money for health care. It's a huge piece of the pie and the whole world gets it for half price.
4) drastic slashing of the military budget, after republicans promise ahead of time, in writing, not to attack the patriotism of anyone making those cuts.
5) eliminate government waste. Always a good thing to do, but near the bottom of the list since it has a very low overall impact.
6) cut government spending that people need. If we end up here, so be it. But there's a lot to do between now and then.
#1 - Fix the economy - How? More government involvement or less?
#2 - Tax the rich. I wouldnt lower taxes on them but if you think that we can solve our financial mess without some degree of personal sacrifice, I disagree with you.
#3 - Health care. I'm just never going to agree with you on this.
#4 - Go for it! Bring 'em home and defend our own borders.
#5 - Eliminate Govt. waste. Again go for it. Only problem is that EVERY politician since Reagan has touted themselves as some sort of 'waste watcher'....and how much bigger (and more wasteful) is the government now as opposed to 20-40 years ago?
#6 - STOP EXTENDING ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS....we have gotten to the point where government programs/entitlements are rewarding bad decisions and Americans have lost track of what the phrase 'personal consequences' means. Is this how Obama plans to get re-elected? Hand out as much money as possible to as many people as possible?
2) It's a major step on the road, not a solution. It's guaranteed to be a big help with no downside.
3) The "double money" bit is not opinion.
5) Bigger is not necessarily more wasteful.
6) Any additional program should have the deficit squarely in mind. Small temporary programs that boost the economy, like cash for clunkers, are likely to pass the test. Big permanent programs that greatly change the spending dynamic for the better, like single-payer health care, are also likely to pass. Many other programs won't pass.
In the words of Warren Buffett: (a moderately wealthy individual)
If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
Gee, This year, after deductions, etc, I paid over 25% of my taxable income out in taxes. (including state, Soc. Sec, Medicaid)
Now you won't hear me crying about this because I realize that I have to help pay for the services I receive in this country.
How about the if top 5% of wage earners stop all the crying and start paying out on an equal level. Some how I think those top 5% will still have plenty left over to pay for that extra bottle of bubble or the extended vacation.
Beck has made his and now he appears to be rabble rousing in an attempt to hang on to it by stirring up that underprivalaged mass of middle income wage earners.
1. It is not a "battle cry" it is a statement.
2. I'n not a liberal, I'm a centrist. I have liberal and conservative views.
3. Please explain how "Pay your fair share" equals "take it out of someone elses pocket and put it in mine"?
4. Fixing the country will take more than tax reform but; it is a start.
We're fixing the national budget, not picking a pee-wee basketball team. Shove your fairness back up where you pulled it from.
Steevie,
You sound like a "Big Government" guy. We have enough government. Lets REDUCE its size, scope and influence.
Just so you know where I come from, I work full time and have a side business of my own. My wife works full time and has a side business of her own. We live in a HIGH tax state. We work hard. We pay what we would consider to be more than our fair share of taxes. We see people (like our 2 kids in their early 20's) just starting out and getting BIG "tax refunds" when they do and earn so much less. As a country we are not only teaching dependence, we are REWARDING it. We wonder what the heck is happening to America.
Should government be big? Answer the question "does big government work" to find out. You'll find that, among many other things, big government health insurance (medicare) creams private health insurance in cost, waste, bureaucracy, and outcome. (If you want to argue that, don't compare Medicare to the ideal. Compare Medicare to private insurance.)
Should punk kids get big tax refunds? Answer the question "do tax refunds for punk kids work" to find out. You'll find that those refunds are pure stimulus and that they provide a much-needed boost on the maxim that it takes money to make money.
Your mind turns reflexively to justice and theory. It never pauses for even a moment to look at practical effectiveness.
And about your own taxes, one of the following is true:
a) your taxes aren't going up, even under any of my plans let alone Obama's.
b) you are tremendously well-compensated for your work, you want for nothing, you have a very nice life, and that will remain true after the evilest of my tax hikes.
Bog government DOES NOT work. There is no real way to pay for it. Se what Greece is dealing with? At its core is an overwhelming sense of entitlement and government/union jobs that cannot be supported by the taxed citizens of that country.
As for government run healthcare, you are going to tell me that the quality is just as good, right?
When your life is on the line....head to Canada.
As for your analogy on the refunds to punk kids, we are creating and rewarding government dependence and redistributing income from those who work and create to those who dont. Sounds like you like that system.....I dont.
Practical effectiveness.....lol...pa-leeze!
As for my taxes....I dont beleive "A" to be true so I guess I am forced to take "B" by default.
Only problem is, there are not enough 'evil rich people' in America for you to pay for the socialistic, redistributive plans of this administration.
"There is no real way to pay for it." -- medicare is CHEAPER than private insurance, you doorknob.
I can tolerate people who don't know what reality is, but I can't tolerate people who can't even stand to look at it. You'll be getting the sharp end of my stick from now on.
"keep that tired argument in your pocket" -- you can't answer my real arguments, so you show me how you would handle some other argument. That's helpful.
But that is not exactly what he is advocating. He actually want Republicans to get voted back in and CAUSE America's economy to collapse.
Seriously, for a while I thought Glenn Beck had the potential to rally all the crazies together and do some serious damage come November.
But the curtain has fallen and he's revealed himself to be some Tony Robbins-esqe motivational speaker who is just shilling for books, appearances that cost $120, and really bad Christmas specials.
It's one big perpetual infomercial for hateful and confused religious fanatics who need a cause to latch on to.
Personally, I can't wait for the mid-term elections. I think the GOP is on yet another downward spiral. And, honestly, I don't see that changing anytime soon. They seem to want to stick with what hasn't worked for decades. And their push to basically devolve American society rings so much more shallow and fraudulent in light of the Obama administration's positive policy decisions and achievements.
Good luck in November, fellas. Pray hard.
understand , 50% our Government spending goes to this.
After all It is the # 1 socialized program in the world ,
as far as total dollars goes......
then the American people could be saving about $440 million a year. I mean if its okay for the American people to get laid off due to advancements in technology and global trade, it should be okay for our representatives to feel the same affliction as the rest of us, in my honest opinion. Thank you.
As to economics: you seem to have confused it with some sort of science. There are as many theories as there are economists. The only pattern that has emerged from history is that expanding economies are healthy -- declining ones are not. If we put a Moon Project level of effort into finding a cheap, reliable source of energy, we will climb back into the world's financial leadership. There are many other avenues that could be pursued, but all must focus on expanding our financial base.