Emails from Wingnuttia

by: David Sirota

Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 00:00


Thought I would share this email from Wingnuttia that I received after debating Grover Norquist today on CNBC. I get lots of hate mail like this, and it is instructive:

Subject: CNBC Performance

David- I had never heard of you until today when I saw you on CNBC.  I initially thought it was a joke after hearing some of your absurd comments about basic economics, but it became painfully clear that you were actually trying to be serious.

It was then that I started researching who you are and what was your background.  I learned that you are nothing more than a democrat operative.  First and foremost you have a journalism and political background vs. an economic one.  Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders pretty much says it all.  All this combined to make your accusation of Grover Norquist being political more than ironic.  

I have a group of 10-12 peers that own businesses and have formal finance backgrounds.  For comic relief, we e-mail clips such as yours today on CNBC to each other.  I have to tell you that your performance today drew the greatest amount of laughter in several months.  Your lack of comprehension of the marginal tax rate and our economic history during the 20th century was priceless.

Going forward, I would strongly encourage you to stay away from venues such as CNBC.  The audience is comprised largely of economic producers as opposed to uninformed populists.  I can't imagine that exposing yourself to this sector of viewer is productive for your career.  I would strongly encourage you to stick with The Huffington Post, CNN and The Colbert Report.  

Best of luck.

I say this note is instructive because, as you see, there's not a single shred of fact in here. Indeed, there's not even a hint at an attempt to make a substantive argument. It's just, "I'm a rich guy and me and my rich friends laughed at you because we think you are stupid."

That's really the motto of Wingnuttia these days - and then somehow, these people wonder why the American public has thrown conservatives out of office.

David Sirota :: Emails from Wingnuttia

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Emails from Wingnuttia | 54 comments
It sounds like the writer .. (4.00 / 3)
loves him some Grover .. if the letter writer works on Wall Street .. he's probably one of those people that fail upwards .. because he surely can't make it on his own
Wait... (4.00 / 4)
You were Press Sec for Bernie Sanders?  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
Yes (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
you Democratic shill, you (4.00 / 4)


The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
These guys take Econ 101, and think that they are.... (4.00 / 12)
...friggin' John Locke or something...

Most of these right wingers have absolutely no clue about economics, but they think that they do 'cos they "own their own business"... how does that make you an expert on monetary or fiscal policy?  Just 'cos you can run a pizza shop doesn't make you and qualified to head the federal reserve.  They believe in all the BS that Grover spouts, even though there is nothing to back it up, except 30 years of believing it to be true, ergo that must be the case...

Remember, that these guys believe that lowering taxes increases government revenue, which is mathematically nearly impossible, unless the economy grows by astronomical numbers...

They have a fixation on taxes, as if every single business decision int eh world is based on taxes, and every social problem can be cured with a tax cut.

My favorite is that they always attack anyone who challenges their belief system as if they are world's leading experts on economics and anyone else, even Nobel prize winning Krugman, are hacks.  Why?  Well, they run a small business, so they know everything!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

it's a religion (4.00 / 3)
They worship the free market idols.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
all bow to the invisible hand! (4.00 / 1)
And when their faith-based hedge fund goes splat, they say that getting slapped by the invisible hand is proof that the invisible hand exists, or something.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers
[ Parent ]
It's a Joetheplummerology mindset (4.00 / 6)
Which a certain type of middle class suburban white guy demographic tends to uncritically and unquestioningly subscribe to. Typically, they possess either a high school education, or some technical post-high school degree like business administration or finance, but little to no liberal arts, social science, or hard science or math education--i.e. they were never really taught how to think critically or even have a clue what it means or that there is such a thing. But they do realize that they're not very educated or sophisticated, and on some level are insecure about and ashamed of it (while at the same time doing nothing about it, like, oh, taking courses, reading books, taking the time to think things through before opining on them).

So they overcompensate for this ignorance, lack of sophistication and insecurity, by putting on a Joe the Plummer act, this aggrieved, maligned and misunderstood "regular guy" persona who, because he's such a "regular guy", knows how the world really works, and doesn't need some fancy-shmancy Ivy League snob to tell him how it works (even though, in reality, he does, and probably knows it). It's the male version of Palin's "Hockey Mom" nonsense. In either case, what you basically have is a stupid and unschooled person who knows that they're stupid and unschooled and instead of shutting the fuck up, insist upon imposing their idiocy on the world so as to not feel irrelevant.

Ech. Most of the world's problems have been caused by insecure morons like these, trying to overcompensate for their failings and feelings of insecurity over their failings. In this country, the vast majority of them are Republicans, or right-leaning "Independants" (which means someone who's basically a Republican but too confused or ashamed to admit it). They're idiots, don't know what they're talking about, subscribe to magical thinking-based pony "ideologies", and don't know when to shut up and let real experts run things. And they vote. And have phones and computers and email accounts.

Ech.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You nailed it! (4.00 / 1)
Except that they do read... lots of right wing articles and books, so they can prove to everyone how "educamated" they really are... after all, it was in a book!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Uncritically reading Regnery-type crap is worse than not reading at all (0.00 / 0)
By reading I was, of course, referring to substantive, factual, non-propagandistic, reality-based works by people who have some expertise in the given subject matter and who have no ulterior agenda other than to enlighten the reader (while also, of course, earning a living). Which does not have to be written from a liberal, progressive, left-leaning perspective, so long as it's based on facts and written in a logical, honest and substantive manner. But the severe lack of such books written from a right-leaning perspective does kind of make you wonder whether there is any longer a worthwhile argument to be made from that side of the aisle. There are some, of course, but relatively speaking, very few, compared to left-leaning ones. "Books" by the likes of Rush, Sean, Billo, Ann, etc., are hardly worth cleaning up dogshit with.

Who are the right's Glenn Greenwalds, James Risens and Rick Perlsteins? John Dean and Kevin Phillips come closest, but they no longer call themselves conservatives, at least of the modern sort. Jack Goldsmith wrote an admirable book last year on the Bush administration's constitutional violations, but has now discredited himself with his WaPo op-ed urging that the likes of Yoo, Addington and Cheney not be investigated or prosecuted for these violations. Try as they might, wingers are simply incapable of being philosophically honest and consistent. Push comes to shove, and it's ideological tribalism over moral, ideological and constitutional honesty. Whether operating at the Joetheplummer or Bill Buckley level, conservatives simply cannot and will not live in reality. It is the core defining characteristic of their movement, which was in fact founded precisely in order to avoid having to acknowledge and deal with reality. Modern conservatism isn't about actual conservatism so much as it's about ponies, whether at the "gut" or intellectual level. One can be a "conservative" without denying reality. But one simply cannot be a modern Conservative and not do so, though. They are not conservatives. They are denialists, fabulists and fetishists.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Atrios (4.00 / 3)
Has mocked these Econ 101 "economists" at times too.  It's true they get just enough understanding of the perfect theory of markets to be dangerous ideologues, without seeing all the ways these ideas don't hold up in the real world application.

Krugman had a great essay I stumbled over some time ago about how business people are not good economists even if they are great business people, explaining all the different concerns the two groups have.  It was a compelling rationale to stop making famous CEOs into Treasury Secretaries or Fed Chairs.

Which is one thing I am very glad about Obama's pick, he is not a businessman.

[ Parent ]
Econ 101 (4.00 / 1)
The last refuge of scoundrels..

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
yup (4.00 / 1)
Like creationists who take two semesters of biology and all of a sudden can explain why every biology professor in the world is wrong.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers
[ Parent ]
it's particularly funny (4.00 / 4)
How he says you're a Democratic operative then notes you worked for someone who actually isn't a Democrat.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
But! Bu!t But! He Owns A Business! (4.00 / 6)
He's a PRODUCER!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I bet he even owns a fancy outdoor grill! (4.00 / 4)
Maybe a Hummer too! And of course the latest Blackberry which he makes sure to wear on his belt so everyone knows what a winner he is! And sports a way-cool suburban guy goatee!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Keep going back to CNBC, David. (4.00 / 5)
They really need something other than a wingnut viewpoint.
Yeah, don't be cowed by the bullies... (4.00 / 3)
This whole email reminded me of junior high...  What a joke... we tried it their way and it didn't work out very well, did it?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
I thought you did really well on CNBC (4.00 / 8)
The women reporter? name? I have seen before is some supply side, right wing tax fundamentalist.  she doesn't strike me as ahem....well informed.  What studies showed GDP falls when the rich pay taxes?

It takes great equanimity to keep your poise talking to 2 right wing nuts....and not go after her jugular. I hope they bring you back.  Your coolness, I hope, means they do.

It must be hard getting such mail...it really drags you down...it's hard not to take it personally..I admire you ability to endure such crap.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Yeah, good performance! (4.00 / 1)
You made the right points, and made them well. And the discussion never went into tax specific details, so the criticism by that "business owner" is totally baseless. Really, the only one who made a total ass out of himself was Norquist with his ridiculous "explanation" for the financial crisis. That your letter writer doesn't even mention this implies he really believed that crap. What a clown!

No, there's only one thing you can be criticized for in this context: That once again you write a whole story on the news that someone criticized you (d'oh! Must be episode #451 of that never ending series).
Hmm, sry, but I don't think that's a very interesting topic.

[ Parent ]
There's Much To Chuckle Over Here (4.00 / 9)
But what strikes me, at bottom, is the belief that owning a business makes one an expert in economics.

This was precisely the naive faith that held sway in the 1920s, and led us down the primrose path to the Great Depression.  Because, of course, the economy as a whole is not just the sum of its parts.  It's a complex--very complex--system.  

In fact, if these business geniuses were to pick up a college catalogue, they'd discover--lo and behold!--that there are even two separate fields of economics, micro-economics and macro-economics--precisely because the logic that applies to owning a business is completely different from that of understanding a whole economy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

It's a manifestation of the darker side of the American Dream (4.00 / 5)
I.e. the fantasy that with nothing more than grit, hard work and self-confidence, one can do anything. Um, no, one can't, and one shouldn't even try. But millions deeply believe in it, which allows them to passionately support a party and movement and people whose interests are directly opposed to theirs, under the illusion that one day they too will join their ranks. Um, no, they won't--EVER. But, being too stupid and/or in thrall to the pony-chasing magical thinking way of life, they will never admit or realize it. I know such people and they're beyond help and hope. It's like being in a cult. An ideological and political cult. And there's no way out.

Note that I am NOT saying that hard work and tenacity don't pay off. Clearly, they do. But only towards goals that are realistically attainable, for which one possesses some minimum measure of aptitude, training and passion, and persues with discipline and intelligence. But some poor shmuck with an eTrade account, a dual monitor PC, and $50k blown on one of those snake oil "Guaranteed Financial Trading System" "seminars" that blow through the local airport Marriot is simply NEVER going to be the next Warren Buffet. (But with luck and pluck, they can certainly be the next Joetheplummer.)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Do you mean to say (4.00 / 1)
that Michael Phelps might not be good at running the IOC?  But he has 8 gold medals!

[ Parent ]
Wingnuts (4.00 / 1)
They call them wingnuts for a reason!

I have another question, though.  On Maddow tonight you called Summers and Geitherner "Wall Street Guys".  Looking over both of their entries at wikipedia I notice both have only had government and academic jobs, nothing on Wall Street.  Do you call them Wall Street guys because they worked for Rubin, who is clearly a Wall Street guy, or for some other reason?

Geithner (4.00 / 1)
Both are signed sealed and delivered by Wall Street - they are known as Wall Street allies (and Geithner, in his role as head of the NY Fed, truly works on Wall Street).
[ Parent ]
They're Just Trying to Rattle You (4.00 / 2)
Expect more hate mail in this fashion and learn to ignore it. You are a voice in the poltical diagloue and your profile is growing, which naturally leads to this sort of criticism from those who would like nothing more than to see you collapse. Giving credence to your detractors by acknowledging their messages is probably going to encourage them, so don't waste the time analyzing the ludricous things they will throw your way.

Just keep it all safely tucked away somewhere. You are going to want to look back someday after the nation has changed and see what jerks people used to be. You never know - having a nastygram from someone with something to lose could work to your advantage someday.

M

That reminds me of a comment I made on my blog (4.00 / 2)
Basically one of the attacks Republicans used during this election was that middle class tax cuts were socialism.

I even saw some pushback on redstate from that meme, but most of the comments were approving.

And in this election most people thought the democrats were better on cutting taxes.  

They probably didn't understand that they were taking their class warfare a bit too far in the last election.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

"How can you not be one of us?" (4.00 / 4)
Nate Silver pointed this out some time ago: Right-wingers and Republicans have forgotten that they need to persuade people of their point of view.

Persuasion leaves you open to be persuaded in return because it requires intelligent engagement. Hence, it is safer to talk only to like-minded "peers" and read only what material from right-wing think-tanks.

So you get this sort of astonished "How can you not be one of us ..?". And if you are not, you must be stupid/ deranged or malignant.

Where I live... (0.00 / 0)
I get the "How can you not be...?" reaction based only on my being a white male.  
[ Parent ]
Totally OT, sry, but what happened to the "recommended" button? (0.00 / 0)
I just wanted to recommend the diary by Jacob Freeze (under the "Diaries" list on the right side), but there's no "recommended" button anywhere. Do you others have the same problem, or is this something that's wrong with my profile???
It's the plus sign (0.00 / 0)
It's the little plus sign after the title of the diary.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA
[ Parent ]
Ok, thx... (0.00 / 0)
That's what I thought, too. However, I used that regularly in the last weeks, but in the "recommended" list under the "diaries" section of my profile, there is only one old entry...
!?
[ Parent ]
Chris (4.00 / 1)
Removed the rec list as diary recommends were too infrequent to even have a meaningful rec list.  It gave more space to quick hits.
[ Parent ]
Hmm, so recommendations have become totally useless? (0.00 / 0)
Thx fo answering, Daniel, but shouldn't then the "plus" buttons go, too? Or am I misunderstanding something?
[ Parent ]
the plus (0.00 / 0)
when you hover the link, it says something about adding it to your hotlist.  It isn't a recommend button.  Problem is, I don't see where it goes from there as I can't find any place to view my hotlist once I have added a diary to it.

Soapblox is a work in progress I suppose and that might be a feature not yet full implemented...

[ Parent ]
It's in the menu, to the right of this comment... (0.00 / 0)
...directly under "Your Comments"! See? "Hot List".
Need some new glasses, Daniel?
:D
[ Parent ]
oh yeah (0.00 / 0)
haha...so anyway, no more rec list or recommend button.  
[ Parent ]
is someone being a bit sensistive? (4.00 / 1)
To construct an entire blog post on nothing but a simplistic critique by a CNBC viewer seems a bit excessive self-awareness.  I have read somewhere that the average CNBC viewer is white a republican, that makes 175k a year, and is 55 years old.  One would suspect that a progressive commentator, in the economic climate we are in, with the election results we just had, in such a forum... would have received many more critical comments and probably some that are actually postworthy.  This one was not.
Steve
I seriously doubt it (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps, if you include all the financial professionals who have their TVs at work permanently set to CNBC, this average might hold up. But I'm guessing that the average HOME viewer of CNBC is a suburban white guy in his 30's-40's making $50k a year and looking to be the next Warren Buffet, and CNBC puts out this average demographic to give people like this the illusion of being much richer and more successful than they actually are, and thus keep them watching (and eye candy like Erin Burnett and Money Honey doesn't hurt).

And you're not actually suggesting that the guy who wrote this email is an outlier, are you? He's typical, sadly. Probably a Rush and Sean fan, too. It's all of a similar mindset, and the GOP's non-fundy base--dumb white guys with pony fantasies.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Indeed. (0.00 / 0)
This describes many people in the CA legislature.
[ Parent ]
I think your demographics also explain what David is saying... (4.00 / 1)
The 'average' business-owning Republican only believes the numbers on any topic as explained to them by their heroes on the right...the old cliche sums it up 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.  

So when CNBC says their average viewer makes $175K, they don't tell you what the median viewer makes.  CNBC has small viewership so all it would take is a handful of CEOs responding to their viewership surveys and the income numbers get wildly skewed.  As kovie says, this makes the real 'average' viewer feel special because he is told he too could make $175K a year if only Democrats would get out of his way.  That $10K the real viewer pays in taxes could have been invested in the market and would instantly turn into untold riches because Norquist and Kudlow told him so.

[ Parent ]
Laffer Curve (4.00 / 1)
My basic economics textbook says it might apply in countries with tax rates on the order of Sweden, but even that seems unlikely. The funny thing is that you were arguing for a more balanced budget. Are you a conservative?
More like the UK in the 70s (0.00 / 0)
"When Labour was previously in power, in the late 1970s under James Callaghan, the top rate of tax was 83 percent on earned income and 98 percent on unearned income. These rates were cut to 60 percent and 75 percent when Thatcher took office."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

Ok, I guess we can safely assume that THAT was on the right side of the Laffer curve. But nowadays' Sweden? I don't think so.

[ Parent ]
controlling the dialogue (4.00 / 4)
Your experience and this response is really illuminating. What is essential for the right wing nuts, but maybe even more to the broader ruling elite, is to control the parameters and the range of discussion and policy options. So  Grover Norquist whose infantile policy ideas to do away with government (if necessary by creating bad and destructive policy and practice) is hailed by a whole large section of our ruling elite, and tolerated by the rest, even deeming Norquist as a leading intellectual. Similarly the cartoon ideas of Ayn Rand are followed by such geniuses as the maestro, "Bubbles" Greenspan, as he led this country into unregulated and speculative policies that only benefited his wealthy patrons. Any left alternative is deemed too silly to be considered; just as the left antiwar position while it had broad appeal, had no standing in the acceptable foreign policy debate, and was effectively marginalized and trivialized by the deep thinkers of the establishment. (Didn't Friedman destroy the antiwar view with his remarkably profound three-word  argument for war (i.e. "suck on this")?). The corruption of our political process is largely caused by the dysfunctional media... the  dysfunction is amplified by the very great amount of corporate and right-wingnut wealth used to control the media and the discussion. It is perhaps the greatest single cause of the Bush disaster and our eight years of darkness.
Yesterday (4.00 / 1)
I commented to you about how long it took you to fully endorse Barack Obama.  I just want it to be known that my criticism was in no way meant to disparage your ideas and ideals.  Reading this email got me worried that my comment may have been misconstrued as trolling.

On your worst of days you are worth a dozen Grover Norquists.  I don't take back what I said about it taking you too long to decide who to vote for, but I want to make it clear that I read and respect your posts.  I agree with you about most things.

Wealth transfer versus wealth creation (4.00 / 5)
David,

Sometimes the only real talent a person with money has is the talent to make more money. That is a talent, no doubt about it. And it is understandable that someone with a lot of money would place a high value on the thing he or she has in abundance. The same goes for intelligence, beauty, athletic ability or any other highly valued (and marketable) human trait. But to associate individual wealth with one's personal value really devalues the person making the association. It devalues everyone else as well, not only figuratively, but literally. Therein lies the problem.

In the past 30 years, there has been a focus in this society on wealth as the primary measure of human value. In other words, "Greed is good." It is this belief that greed is good that has led us as a society to equate wealth transfer with wealth creation. They are not the same thing. The securitization/derivatives/CDS/CDO shadow banking ponzi scams that have nearly destroyed our economy have absolutely nothing to do with wealth creation. No wealth was created. It was simply transferred by the banking system by and to those people who controlled the banking system -- Wall Street and Congress. It was transferred from those people who will bear the responsibility for repayment of the debt -- middle class workers, their children and possibly their childrens' children. The fact that it is a transfer of wealth as opposed to a creation of wealth is evidenced by the complete failure of the multi-billion dollar Fed bailouts to have any effect on the real lives of people. It's simply a way to transfer even more wealth and at the same time, balance the cooked books of Henry Paulson's friends.

In other words, your email from the "businessman" reeks of ignorance. Wealth creation results from invention, it is as meritocratic as economics can get. Wealth transfer is the result of having the right rolodex - the result of privilege. Wealth creation is what got us from the cave to the moon. Wealth transfer is what war is for. So far, as a society we've opted for the latter.  

Hey, I own a business too (4.00 / 4)
and me and my two buddies, who also own businesses, were standing around the burn barrel drinking beer last night --  and laughing our asses off at Grover Norquist!
Deficits and Recoveries (0.00 / 0)
I agree that Grover Norquist is an idiot-though the argument he is implicitly making is a creation of the rational expectations school (rational agents make systematic use of information and incorporate that into their current behavior). The problem is that the argument (faulty as it is) was never intended to apply to possible tax rate changes 4-5 years into the future. So his argument, IMO, is doubly wrong. This is the same implicit argument that drilling today for oil will lower the price because the market anticipates future supplies 10 years down the road.

Having said that, I find a flaw in your argument as well. Paying for a stimulus with higher taxes only reduces the size and amount of the stimulus-it defeats the purpose. In actuality, the view that you have to pay for a stimulus is in itself a reflection of economic orthodoxy that budget deficits lead to higher long term interest rates (that argument is at least plausible though again it depends to some degree on rational expectations).

If you look at 32-33, 36-37, 81-82 and 91-92 on through 93 I think you will see the pattern that deficit reduction during periods of recessions or beginning recoveries runs a risk of derailing recoveries.

To wit: the economy was in effect recovering in 1993 from the 91-92 recession. Clinton wanted to speed the recovery, hence his stimulus proposal. In the end, his stimulus was too small to do any good and the tax hikes had the effect of slowing the recovery. Growth was slow and job creation was slow till 1996.

The really strong recovery came in the late 1990's. One fact in that recovery was the tight fiscal policy-it allowed the FED to cut interest rates without fear of recession (contrast this to the tight monetary policy-loose fiscal policy) of the 1980's. The other factors were productivity growth and cheap energy as well as a stock market boom.

Raising taxes does not have a short term stimulus. It may, in some instances have a long term effect of promoting lower interest rates.

It reads more like "disdain mail" (4.00 / 2)
than "hate mail." The letter writer is an obvious bonehead, but given the hateful bile the wingnuts are capable of coughing up the letter had a pretty calm tone.  
let me guess the guy's business (0.00 / 0)
He's in some form of sales.

His job is to schmooze people who have enough money to buy his product. It's a financial service or some sort of high-end item.

So, even when he deals with customers he doesn't actually meet anybody who is middle income or below.

I had a friend in high school who had a dad like this. He was a nice guy. He sold plastics, so he had reason to know about things happening in Asia.

But buying and selling stuff is not the same as having a broad understanding of how the economy works.

And any people who stayed affiliated with the GOP through the Bush years... their judgment is suspect.

of course he could be another Joe the Plumber (4.00 / 1)
who fantasies about what it would be like to be rich.
[ Parent ]
You might consider this off-topic; he certainly would (0.00 / 0)
Can he produce a poem? An Apollo spacecraft? A polio vaccine?

Why is it that guys like this often turn out to be roofing contractors, partners in a couple of pizza take-out places in Buffalo, or lawyers who own six apartment buildings? Macroeconomics my ass! Did any of these guys ever have to meet a payroll?

They've been around since Roosevelt was that man, and they're as clueless today as they ever were....

Their "businesses" (0.00 / 0)
are most likely financial racketeering; they aren't producers, but parasites.

Real producers don't have time to email CNBC clips to each other.

I hope that you thanked him/her for their unsolicited advice!!!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)
I hope that you thanked him/her for their unsolicited advice!!!!!!!!
Emails from Wingnuttia | 54 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox