Monday, March 18, 2013

Note to Shaw

Shaw, you've fallen prey to the same lack of deep-seeded thinking that characterizes all progressives (and, yes, a great many conservatives also). You're looking strictly at static categories and not at the actual flesh and blood human beings who comprise them....For example, did you know that according to the IRS's own data, 58% of the people in the bottom quintile (according to income) in 1996 were out of it by 2005 and that the income of that quintile as a whole (again, the actual human beings and not the static category) went up 91%? Or that more than half of the people in the top 1% of wage earners were no longer in that group during the same time frame and that their income actually went down? Look, I'm not necessarily indicting you for not being aware of this (hardly anybody is) but I'm also hoping that as a open-minded individual you're going to concede that this is a hell of a lot more complicated now that you do know it.............As for Mr. Ryan's budget (which I have criticized as well - mostly for his treatment of the Pentagon as a sacred cow), it raises federal spending 40% over the next 11 years and, while, yes, it does introduce a premium support option to Medicare, you should probably also know that Democrats such as John Breaux, Ron Wyden, and Alice Rivlin have themselves made some similar overtures. Yes, wealthy seniors will probably have to pay more but this whole line of the President's that ALL seniors are going to have to pay an additional $6,400 out of pocket is bullcrap and HE knows it.............Of course we could always go with Nancy Pelosi's plan for Medicare being Medicare. That'll no doubt work, too.

10 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Continuing to breathe while I look forward to Ms. Shaw's considered response.

Often there is more than meets the eye, as most of us have found out at one time or another

dmarks said...

Refraining from commenting as Shaw as far as I know does not read or comment here.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, I posted this on her comments section and decided after the fact to create a post out of it. Hopefully she'll at least consider the dynamic involved here.

Rational Nation USA said...

I'm thinking not. Of course it is possible she is gatherimg more data from more progressive gurus to counter with.

dmarks said...

She is probably to busy. And not, to paraphrase Bill, afraid to come on the show.

Rusty Shackelford said...



She would never venture from her echo chambers.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

She seems like a good person. I just wish that she would call out the crazies on her side (Ed Schultz, Maxine Waters, Markos Moulitsas, Pelosi, etc.) occasionally.

dmarks said...

Will: She's very deeply into the "Party" side of things, and too often rejects principle when it comes in conflict with the party line. That's a lot different from how you and RN do things. Rusty seems to be a lot more principled too, as is Jerry, and I try to be this way also.

Anyway, that is why you rarely see Shaw bash Democrats for doing the same sort of thing she bashes Republicans for. For similar, but not identical reasons that you don't see this site [democrats.org] bash Democrats.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Obama doing 80-90% of what Bush was doing and in terms of casualties in Afghanistan, aren't they fast approaching 3-1 Obama now (speaking of Jerry, I believe that he acknowledges this on his blog)?

Barlowe Bayer said...

Seems as though this "Shaw" person (whoever she is) isn't going to respond. Did you think she would?

Also, that w-dervish fellow whom you banned left a comment on my blog (just one though, luckily he didn't decide to start spamming me... yet). I took a look at his blog... it appears as though he has a strong disliking for both Will and dmarks. There are quite a few posts bashing both of you.