Willis Hart Lies & Delusions Re Democratic Socialists Desiring Government Confiscation On A Frightening Scale

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates the Progressive Left. As far as Democratic Socialism goes, his hatred for it is even greater. Although he did once indicate that he believes that the ENTIRE Left is Communist, so it's possible he makes no distinction between the current Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists (OST #102).

Regardless, it is a fact that, back when Bernie Sanders was a 2016 potus hopeful, Willis went after him more than Hillary Clinton. Below is one example, a commentary in which he lies about what it says on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website.

Willis Hart: On the Democratic Socialists of America (Bernie's Fellow Fascist Buddies) Website Stating that "In the Short Term, We Can't Eliminate Private Corporations but We Can Bring Them Under Democratic Control"... The key words here of course being, IN THE SHORT TERM (meaning that in the long term government confiscation on such a frightening scale is exactly what these assholes want). And don't you just love the way that they mask this whole tyrannical use of government force in such flowery jargon as "democratic control", as opposed to what it truly is - theft? Of course, the saddest part of all is the fact that its effective, with the average voter in America being a) dumber than a box of rocks (all too willing to accept the whole "free lunch" narrative) and b) easily bribed ("free stuff for me!!"). Yeah, I'm not very optimistic here. (4/19/2016 AT 4:33pm).

So I Googled on the phrase that Willis puts between quotes in his commentary. The only result Google returned was Willis' own website. Removing the quotes, however, did yield a result. Turns out Willis edited what he found on the DSA website by removing one word (which I cap in red in the REAL quote below).

Question: Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism? Answer: In the short term we can't eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under GREATER democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. (Democratic Socialists of America website).

The ACTUAL key word here of course being, "encourage". But Willis stops short (with his quote), leaving this out so he can falsely claim their goal is "government confiscation". As for "in the short term", I doubt we'll ever eliminate private corporation. Or publically held corporations ("held" by "the public" in that stock in the company is publically traded). The best we can hope for is to pursue the "encourage" strategy, I think. Via laws that make the creation of cooperatives easier. Or by laws that give tax breaks to owners of privately held companies who sell to their employees.

In either case, passing laws to make it easier for employees to form co-ops (by buying businesses from owners or shareholders WILLING TO SELL) involves absolutely zero "tyrannical use of government force". So, when Willis sez confiscation "is exactly what these assholes want" what he is referring to are his own paranoid delusions. I mean, to see how absolutely full of shit Hart is, all we need to look at the state of corporate enterprise in European democratic socialist countries. Here we have highly profitable corporations that include IKEA and Volvo in Sweden and Siemens in Germany.

Are any of these corporations worried about the possibility of "government confiscation"? Are they expending funds to lobby their respective governments to stop plans to seize their businesses and turn them over to their employees?

Perhaps Willis, if his post pointed to sources that indicated ANY of these fears are in any way possible (via a link to a news source that stated any democratic socialist nation was considering legislation that would enable the seizing of businesses)? Then maybe his fears could be considered real. As opposed to delusional conjecture based on 4 words from the DSA website ("in the short term"). From which he concludes that their long term agenda is "government confiscation on... a frightening scale".

Although, to conclude this it's necessary for him to ignore the word "greater". Use of which would indicate that they're in favor of increasing United States unionization figures (currently 7%) as well as the number employee owned companies (a a short list). Growing these two via regulations (making it easier to unionize and form co-ops) and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest (making it easier for employees to unionize, buy businesses and form co-ops) falls INCREDIBLY short of Hart's paranoid conspiracy involving "confiscation on such a frightening scale".

Keep in mind that we're talking about DEMOCRATIC Socialism, which would involve the citizens of the United States voting to move us toward a system under which the plutocrats have less control. Via regulations making such processes easier (democratizing businesses) we can achieve greater unionization rates and more co-ops. All possible without the use of "tyrannical government force" (which is never mentioned on the DSA website and is PURELY a product of WTNPH's fevered wealth-worshipping imagination).

I can understand why oligarchy worshippers such as the Hartster feel the need to fear monger/lie on this topic, however. That someone like Bernie Sanders actually won a lot of primaries (he gave the establishment candidate HRC a run for her money) seriously scares Willis. Hence all the commentaries on his blog regarding how the Democratic Party has changed (AKA gone increasingly Commie).

The Sanders movement is proof of how sick of plutocracy the voters are. Which is why the prospect of a Sanders presidency had Willis shitting his pants. And he's likely still shitting his pants thinking of the prospect that these voters might work to push (a likely) president HRC to work for more of what benefits The People (more democratic socialism). As opposed to benefiting the oligarchs (whom Willis loves). Hence all the ridiculous conspiracy theory bullshit from him (such as the post above).

Video: Toward a caring economy. Webinar presented by The Next System (1:24:52).

OST #170

Confusion Over Who Benefits From "Free Trade"

Actually I think it's delusion. That or wealth worshipping. I'm talking about the following commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that While We Generally Agree that Most Financial Transactions Are Beneficial to Both Sides, Every Microbe of that Wisdom Seems To Get Jettisoned Out the Window When the Participants Are from Different Countries... Welcome to the new nationalism (which really isn't all that different from the old if the truth was known; Lincoln, Hoover, etc.), Donald Trump style. (7/4/2016 AT 8:35pm).

Actually, no. I don't agree that most financial transactions are beneficial to both sides. Many are, but many are not. Although that isn't the statement I take exception to. "When the participants are from different countries" is what I object to. Willis refers to trade, but most of the time what's going on is labor offshoring. Which is when an American company either (1) builds a factory in a low wage country to manufacture goods for import to the US, or (2) contracts with a factor located in a low wage country to manufacture goods for import into the US. Either way what we're really talking about is sending jobs that used to be done by Americans to a low wage country, and NOT trade.

I suppose you could say that both sides benefit, in that the oligarchs here make more money because their labor costs are reduced dramatically. And their environmental protection compliance costs are often reduced as well (as these regulations are usually weaker in 3rd world countries). And (on the other side) overseas workers get crappy jobs (long hours/low pay) that sometimes leads to their deaths (factories collapsing/suicide). And the higher ups (factory supervisors) probably get paid a little more.

And American consumers get prices that are a little lower. This is the main "benefit" that "free traders" like Willis refer to. Even though American workers are getting screwed. So, regarding this "benefit", the question is if the lower prices are worth the lost jobs (jobs the "free traders" say will be offset by jobs created when we export to our trading partners).

Unfortunately, the facts clearly show the negatives outweigh the positives. All one has to do is look at the growing US trade deficit to debunk this Libertarian BS. If Willis were talking about balanced trade I'd have to agree with me. But he isn't. He's referring to a system under which products that used to be manufactured in the United States no longer are (labor offshoring that results in lost US jobs) and imbalanced trade (we import much more than we export. A fact that blows away the free trader argument that says jobs created in the export sector will offset jobs lost).

Clearly it's the so-called free traders who are jettisoning every microbe of wisdom... or are they? I mean, if you look at who REALLY benefits (the oligarch) then the trade liberalization position makes total sense.

As for Donald Trump's opposition to free trade... this is one area where I think he's right. Although he is playing to the racists with this issue. The "brown people are taking our jobs" meme. But someone can be opposed to labor offshoring and unbalanced corporate managed trade for reasons other than racism. Reasons including the fact that this kind of trade mainly benefits the oligarchs.

The Trump voters don't see who is really benefiting (of course). In their eyes the brown people (and Asian people) are to blame. As opposed to the oligarchs. So, when Willis refers to "the new nationalism:", does he mean standing up to oligarchy? Of course not. But he's a deluded stooge.

Although, apparently he wouldn't have voted YES on Brexit, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There were racists who voted YES on Brexit because the wanted the foreigners out of Britain (so those voters were motivated by nationalism). Why express opposition to nationalism in regards to "free trade" but support in regards to the Brexit?

And post Brexit laborers willing to work for less than British citizens can no longer enter the country freely. That being the case, I would have guessed the Hartster would have been opposed to Brexit. The only explanation I can come up with is... man oh man are these Libertarians ever dumb (See OST #155).

OST #155

On The Libertarian Concept of Giving To The Oligarchs Infinite & Unchecked Power

At the end of the Libertarian hero Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a socialist dystopian government is overthrown and replaced with oligarchy. During the "transition" millions of non-rich folks (whom Rand refers to as parasites) are killed (or exterminated) when the selfish rich f*ckers "go on strike" and civilization collapses.

Proving that the Libertarian idea of "utopia" is mass death for all who are not wealthy (AKA "moochers"). Given this fact, I say we only entertain such nonsense at our peril, as going full Libertarian would surely involve counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.

The Ayn-Rand-worshipping Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, in typical Randian fashion, frequently extresses his hatred for democracy (WTNPH: "democracies have a penchant to devour themselves"). These screeds usually taking the form of condemnation as "teft" that people might vote for "free stuff" that increases taxes on wealthier people.

In a recent commentary, Willis clearly alludes to the Randian idea that democracy leads to totalitarianism.

Willis Hart: On the Concept of Giving to the Government Infinite and Unchecked Power... At one's peril, would be strong advice (that along with counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.) (7/2/2016 AT 3:13pm).

Yeah, his post is a little vague, but how else could one GIVE a government "infinite and unchecked power" if not by voting for it? Obviously, if he wasn't referring to democracy he'd have used the word TAKEN. You could argue that "giving" of such power could occur after a revolution, but I'm going with this being an anti-democracy screed, given his FREQUENT lamenting of people voting for "free stuff" (WTNPH: "people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it").

Hate of democracy and love of oligarchy is, in fact, a major theme in Atlas Shrugged (here, the author of the article I quote refers to Rand's defense of monopoly).

The way the villains of Atlas Shrugged accomplish their evil plan is [by] voting for it. One of the major plot elements of part I is a law called the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces large companies to break themselves up, similarly to the way AT&T was split into the Baby Bells. It's passed by a majority of Congress, and Rand never implies that there's anything improper in the vote or that any dirty tricks were pulled. But because it forces her wealthy capitalist heroes to spin off some of their businesses, it's self-evident that this is the worst thing in the world and could only have been conceived of by evil socialists who hate success. (10 Things I Learned About the World from Ayn Rand's Insane Atlas Shrugged by Adam Lee. AlterNet 4/23/2014).

Although deluded Libertarians like Hart deny they favor monopoly. They actually blame monopoly on government intervention and say (without it) monopolies would never form because "companies are always trying to undercut each other but in those rare instances in which a monopoly does occur, the prices never shoot up because that would just invite new entrants to the market". (see the WTNPH post Monopoly Mythology).

Although this idea is false.

Despite what free market advocates believe, there are ways companies maintain their monopolies without governments' help. One of them is "economies of scale", where it is less costly to be big than to be small, as making a product on a massive scale is more efficient than producing just a few. This makes it almost impossible for new companies to challenge a monopoly. Those favoring the American Airlines-US Airways merger boast that airline mergers will increase economies of scale to make airfare cheaper. But if this trend continues, it is possible that we reach a point where this leads to only one remaining player in the game, having acquired all the rest. Another danger... is that the presence of only a small number of companies would lead to price collusion, where large firms agree to maintain the price higher than the efficient price. In 1993, Kim and Singa, in a study in the American Economic Review, found that airline mergers caused prices to spike, likely due to collusion. (Free Market Supporters Always Get This One Thing Wrong by Wi Wu. Policy Mic 8/19/2013).

This fantastical idea (that free markets self regulate) is one of the primary delusions that form the basis of Libertarianism. They believe it because it justifies giving the oligarchs infinite and unchecked power. The imaginary free market will check their power, Libertarians say.

This despite the fact that "the market" wouldn't exist without governmental rules and regulations governing how it should operate. Fact is, Libertarianism is nothing but a series of nonsensical proposals used to justify the handing off of power to the oligarchs. Because if The People don't decide on these things democratically, then those with the most money will decide.

This is why, if any country ever decided to go full Libertarian, the result would SURELY be a granting of infinite and unchecked power to the oligarchs. A VERY bad concept, most people agree (explaining why Libertarian potus candidate Gary Johnson received less than 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 election).

OST #154

On The Fact That Many Libertarians & Conservatives Are Are Not Too Concerned About Corporate Bureaucracies But Are Obsessed With Governmental Ones

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart reveals this trait in a 6/3/2016 blog post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Hard-Left Always Seems to Think that We're Just One Bureaucratic Layer Away from Perpetual Nirvana... Keep going to the well, don't they? (6/3/2016 AT 10:08pm).

Nirvana? Hardly. Such a thing is not possible here on earth. Bureaucracies are comprised of people, and people are flawed. Although bureaucracy is a necessity.

The German sociologist Max Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which one can organize human activity, and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies were necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism. (Wikipedia/Bureaucracy).

This isn't to say that there isn't a downside. Similar to how "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", bureaucracy might be the worst administrative system governing any large institution, except for all the others.

Although Willis, as a Libertarian, of COURSE only ever criticizes governmental bureaucracies. They're the worst of the two, apparently. My guess would be it's because governmental bureaucracies are there to serve the people (and are answerable to them), whereas corporate bureaucracies exist to serve the profit motive (and are only answerable to the owners).

Anyway, in regards to bashing democracy, Libertarians go to that well a LOT, don't they? Clearly they believe there can never be too little government. No government perhaps being their idea of perpetual nirvana? For the rich folks, anyway. Surely it would be a ceaseless perdition for the rest of us.

OST #149

Does Willis Hart Subscribe To The Cockamamie Economic Theory Known As Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism?

Either the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart subscribes to it, or admires/used to admire another blogger he thinks subscribes/subscribed to Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism (the truest/purest form of Libertarianism).

Willis Hart: On Going from an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian Who Worshiped Ayn Rand and Who Thoroughly Despised the Progressive Left to Somebody Who Essentially Signs-Off on Every Cockamamie Leftist Notion Under the Damned Sun from Demonizing Fossil Fuels to Playing the Race-Card to Demagoguing on Income Inequality, Class Warfare, etc... That is exponentially far from normal behavior and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego, it's damned near psychotic. (4/19/2016 AT 5:25pm).

OK, so Willis previously said "I am hardly an anarcho-capitalist". But I also do not recall Rational Nation (the individual Willis is referring to) voicing any support for anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (AKA neo-feudalism on steroids). Fact is, when I linked to the WTNPH commentary on the RNUSA blog, the Rational guy said "I am not now, nor have I ever been an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian".

So neither RN nor Willis was/is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian? No, I'm not buying it. Not in regards to Hart. For a few reasons. First, (as I already noted) anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of Libertarianism. And, as Noam Chomsky pointed out "the idea of free contract between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke". But it's a joke I know Willis believes. Although, instead of a joke, in a Libertarian's mind this is how the world should be - and would be a Randian utopia (because punishing the poors, whom Ayn Rand hated with a passion, is one of the primary goals of the sick ideology known as Objectivism).

Secondly, we do know that Willis Hart hates Progressives with a passion. So with this praise of who he believes Rational Nation used to be, he transfers to Nation his hatred. And (I'm theorizing) that we aren't dealing with just one instance of transference. It's everything Willis attributes to (the imaginary) past Rational Nation that really applies to him.

Which means he is the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. Perhaps he changed his mind? Given the fact that Hart is a person who has been getting more and more radical over time, I find it quite likely that he has "progressed" to the most insane form Libertarianism.

And Willis is likely with Rand in her hate for the poor (as well as anyone who believes in democracy and disagrees with the idea that society should be organized to benefit the plutocrats). And he most likely agrees with Ayn Rand's views concerning the less fortunate (she thought they should die. A feeling she held so strongly that she killed millions of poor "moochers" and Statists in her revenge porn* novel "atlas shrugged").

Why? Because he said Rational Nation worshipped Rand (it's transference again. Remember I said everything Hart said he used to admire in the Rational guy is, in reality, qualities he admires in himself). Willis Hart is the guy who is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian who worships Ayn Rand and who thoroughly despises the Progressive Left.

And he also very frequently whines constantly about "demonizing fossil fuels" (AKA acknowledging the scientific community's consensus on climate change), "playing the race-card" (acknowledging racism exists not just as a fringe issue, but as a systemic problem) and "demagoguing on income inequality" (not bowing down and worshipping at the feet of the wealthy as he does).

Conclusion? The behavior being exhibited by the Harster is exponentially far from normal and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego delusion (Willis believing that the blogger Jersey McJones is a sock puppet of Rational Nation), it's almost certainly a sign of psychosis.

(*Revenge of the overtaxed plutocrats).

Image: A simple depiction of why Libertarians love the psychotic anarcho-capitalism idea; it's a system under which worthless scumbag poors are forced to submit to their wealthy superiors... or die.

OST #135

They're All Neocons Now

So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).

Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hart suggests voting Libertarian. I say no.

First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).

The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...

Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish. While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.

And they're solidly on the side of the wealthy and corporations. Because, if you shrink government, you diminish the power of The People, leaving an opening for the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum (Exposing Libertarianism: The Belief That We Should Give More Power to Those Who Are Corrupting Government).

Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.

As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").

"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).

Yet there have been ZERO commentaries from Willis lauding or acknowledging Senator Sanders for his anti-war (or at least considerably less hawkish) voting record/positions (President Bernie Sanders Will Save America From Endless Counterinsurgency Wars and Protect Our Nation's Veterans).

Whereas the Harster HAS praised Trump for saying going into Iraq was a strategic mistake and for not being a neocon (or listening to them).

So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".

OST #123

On A Person Referring To Government Taxing To Fund Social Safety Net Programs As "Confiscation" & Implying Someone Who Votes For A Candidate Who Favors This Because They'd Personally Benefit As Lacking Morals

I would direct this individual to the Constitution, which reads as follows...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Wikipedia/Taxing and Spending Clause).

Yes, this person (Willis Hart of the blog "Contra O'Reilly") is a Libertarian; and Libertarians don't believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax to pay for "general welfare" items, but THEY ARE WRONG!

[Libertarians believe] Section 8 of the Constitution forbids the spending of tax money in order to help people, but if you actually read Article 1, Section 8 instead of just accepting [a Libertarian's] word for it, you'll see that [they are] just plain wrong. Article 1, Section 8 begins: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". The meaning of this clause is very clear: If a legislative action can be justified as providing for the general welfare of the United States, then Congress has the power to do it (other provisions providing some limitations, such as the guarantees of free speech and so on in the Bill of Rights). There's no provision anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids Congress from engaging in secular charitable action. (A Libertarian Ignorance of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis by Congress Watcher. That's My Congress 12/22/2009).

The Supreme Court specifically rebuked the Libertarian interpretation with their 1/6/1936 decision in United States v. Butler, in which the majority opinion was that the clause granted "a substantive power... to appropriate", which is not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress (source).

So, the Supreme Court has ruled that government DOES have the power to levy taxes in order to pay for the "general welfare". There is also, btw, no restriction on voters that says they can't cast their ballot for a candidate that promises some "general welfare" spending that might personally benefit the voter. In spite of what Willis might think.

Willis Hart: On Voting for Somebody Because They Promised to Confiscate Property from One Person and Give it to You... Has it really come down to that? I mean, are we that desperate and pitiful now? (1/31/2016 AT 8:40).

So, no. It hasn't "come down to this". This, I would figure, has ALWAYS been a factor for many voters. Voters who would not describe their motivations for selecting a candidate as either "desperate" or "pitiful" (or morally lacking). I would say they are acting in their rational self interest... and isn't this something Libertarians consider a virtue?

Secondly, I'd remind this person that the United States *is* a social democracy. The US isn't as strong a social democracy as the European social democracies, but we do have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other socialist programs... and these programs have entire voting blocks for which these programs play a prominent role (in regards to who these blocks vote for). Seniors on Social Security might be "desperate" and their situation might be "pitiful"... but are these voters "pitiful"?

Obviously Willis believes so (and looks down his nose at these people). Which reminds me of (as Media Matters described it) "Matthew Vadum's vicious diatribe against poor people".

Media Matters: What is a news network to do when an author compares poor Americans to criminals and says it's "un-American" to help them vote? If that network is Fox - the home of class warfare against the poor - the decision is to give that author a spot on TV the next day. The day after publishing an article titled, "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American", which contained such abhorrent statements as "[r]egistering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals" and repeatedly called the poor "nonproductive segments of the population", right-wing author Matthew Vadum appeared on Eric Bolling's Fox Business show to rail against President Obama's voter outreach plan. (9/3/2011 article by Zachary Pleat).

What I find pitiful is this kind of demonization of the poor (from the likes of Hart and Vadum. I bet the Hartster would love Vadum's article). I can absolutely see Willis agreeing that "encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money".

BTW, I'd like to point out that this commentary from Willis (in which he calls voters acting in their own economic self-interest desperate and pitiful) lies in stark contrast with his previously stated support for the negative income tax.

Willis Hart: Yes, we do away with the minimum wage, completely. But then we replace it with a form of negative income tax, possibly along the lines of what Milton Friedman first suggested. [excerpt from "Thinking Outside the Wage"] (6/4/2012 AT 7:13pm).

Doing away with the minimum wage is an idea that Conservatives love because it is (in essence) a subsidy to Big Business, in that it allows companies to underpay labor (Walmart being a HUGE offender here) and have the taxpayer make up the difference (SWTD #222).

Willis claims that we should "allow the market to set the true value of labor" but (if you get rid of the MW and institute a NIT) the result would be an EVEN GREATER undervaluing of labor (as he says, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Here the thing you'd get more of is low wage jobs... and they wouldn't be newly created jobs, they'd be existing jobs that employers could significantly drop the wages for).

But, setting that argument aside, where the hell does Willis think the government is going to get the money to pay a negative income tax? This would, of course, require more EVIL "confiscation" (of "other people's money"). Perhaps he's changed his mind on this and now thinks we should just let poor people die? I don't know.

In either case I say these views (government taxation as authorized by the Constitution is "confiscation" or "theft") prove the Hartster is a total moron as well as a stoogish true-believing plutocrat lover.

Image: The cartoon below was one of the results returned when I did an image search on "Negative Income Tax". Obviously the cartoonist does not have a positive view of it. BTW, notice that the stick figures who are non-payers are smiling... why the f*ck would people who are so poor that they don't have to pay income taxes be smiling?! F*cking ridiculous. Reminds me of the sitcom about happy homeless people (because they had no responsibilities) that was pitched to the Jack Lucas character in the movie The Fisher King.

OST #103

On Referring To The Exploitation Of Labor By Not Paying A Living Wage As "Removing the Bottom Rungs Of A Ladder"

No person with his head screwed on properly would get behind such a boneheaded frame, and yet we have these supposedly intelligent politicians suggesting that we kowtow to the wealthy elites who want to steal from working people by eliminating the minimum wage (more of the fruits of the working man's labor should go to them instead of those doing the actual work).

How dumb is that? As Abraham Lincoln said "capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed". Yet Republicans and Libertarians continue to push the false meme that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs when research shows this to be false.

Of course, the fact that we already have hundreds of thousands of young black males frozen out of the labor market NOW makes this even more idiotic (not to mention, tragic) and I really want to ask these buffoons why, when if you put more money into the hands of working people by paying them a living wage which would act as an economic stimulus, they are so opposed to paying working people a fair living wage (as opposed to forcing them to continue to live in poverty and only just get by via social safety net programs which are functionally subsidies to the large corporations)?

I suspect it's because they're either brainwashed true believers who actually buy this bullshit, or they're wealthy worshipping stooges who find comfort in deception (they accept the lies of the Libertairan "lumanaries" without question because it serves the "greater good" of further enriching the already wealthy). And I'm convinced that with some of them there there are racist motivations for wanting to keep young African American males working for low wages.

As for which category the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart falls into, I can't say for certain. I suspect it's more of the former and less of the later, but given how much this dude seems to worship wealthy people, I can't say for certain.

OST #98

On The Trusting of One's Well-Being to Parasitic Transnational Megacorporations, Bought & Paid for Think Tank Fellows, & Greedy Power-Hungry CEOs

These people are deluded/brainwashed beyond comprehension. Frankly I find it astonishing that Libertarian democracy-hating wealth-worshiping stooges like Willis V Hart are so eager to turn our country over to the oligarchs wholely. One surely can not have boatload of self-esteem to live like that. And don't even get me going on the naivete. Please. PLEASE.

OST #86

Libertarian Free Trading Buffoons On How To Turn A Huge Fortune Into An Even Larger One

Destroy American jobs via outsourcing to low-wage third-world countries. Then blame the workers whose jobs were outsourced for being unemployed. They didn't "skill up", improve their "human capital", etc. This criticism even though workers with skills have also lost their jobs. Many White collar jobs were lost when India "liberalized" their economy, which enabled the corporate plutocrats to eliminate skilled US positions (SWTD #221), for example.

But these Libertarian free trade advocating buffoons believe the fortunes of the world's plutocrats will go from being huge to even larger via the destruction of American jobs. Which they are correct about. The buffoonery is found in their short sightedness. Eventually the continual flow of jobs (blue and white collar) to low wage countries will decimate the middle class. We know this because it is already in the process of happening (America's Incredible Shrinking Middle Class).

It is due to intended stoogery (in that they actually WANT the plutocrats to grow even wealthier at the expense of everyone else) or unintended stoogery (in that these fools actually believe Libertarianism will benefit everyone) - that posts like the following are produced by indoctrinated chumps like Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: Socialist Buffoons on How to Amass a Small Fortune... Start with a large fortune and prune away at it. (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

I presume the Hartster is referring to high taxation, such as in countries like Sweden. A democratic socialist nation Willis learns an incorrect lesson from. The dumb-dumb thinks that because Sweden dialed back the percentage of their GDP that is government spending, that somehow validates his Libertarian "free market" less government worldview. Further proof that Willis V. Hart is indeed a total moron? I think YES.

OST #84

Gullible Wealth Worshipping Stooge Willis Hart Buys WSJ Lies Re Bernie Sanders' Invest In America Strategy

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a wealth-worshipping stooge who believes in keeping taxes low on rich people and corporations and is strongly opposed to government investments that will grow our economy and pay big dividends.

This explains why he hates Bernie Sanders so much. Bernie, as a Democratic Socialist, knows that investing in America will pay off big time, in that it will result in prosperity for all, instead of just the incredibly wealthy individuals at the top that (the atheist) Hartster worships as if they were gods.

This is why, when one of his blog's few approved commenters passed on some lies from the Wall Street Journal concerning the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders is championing, Willis agreed with those lies... and slammed Bernie with a bogus insult.

The exchange between Shackelford and Hart as follows.

Rusty Shackelford: The WSJ did a story two weeks ago breaking down the cost of Sanders wish list. The cost would be 18 trillion dollars over ten years. (10/14/2015 AT 6:01pm). Willis Hart: Computation obviously isn't the dude's strong suit. (10/15/2015 AT 3:57pm).

Actually, Willis, intellectually honesty is not YOUR strong suit, as the WSJ lied about the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders would push as president.

...while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it's paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders' plan we'd all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety. ...the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we're already paying for in other ways. (No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion by Paul Waldman. The Washington Post, 9/15/2015).

In other words the 18 trillion the WSJ deceptively portrays as new spending is actually money we are ALREADY spending. Bernie simply wants to change HOW we spend it. Instead of individuals spending the money (as they do now), government would spend it. But the lying author of the WSJ article does mention this AT ALL in her hit-piece on Senator Sanders.

Instead the article plays up the "price tag", referring to "new spending", "new taxes" and how "centrist" Democrats think this is a bad idea.

"We are not a country that has limitless resources. You need to tamp on the brakes somewhere, but he doesn't", said Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at the Democratic think tank Third Way. (Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion by Laura Meckler. WSJ 9/14/2015).

"Limitless resources"? WTF is this dumbass talking about? As I already noted, this is money we are ALREADY spending. Some people (the poorest among us) aren't spending it, of course... and they'd be covered under any social program a Sanders' administration was able to put into place. THAT must be what Jim Kessler objects to... covering poor people at the expense of wealthy people. Both wealthy individuals who would pay more in taxes and wealthy corporations... specifically health care insurance corporations, who would be cut out of their massive profits gained via denying coverage and gouging customers (the horror!).

And that too would be my guess as to why Sanders' bid for the White House offends the wealth-worshipping stooge Willis so much (dude's a frigging socialist, for Christ sakes!).

Yes, under a Sanders' administration everyone would pay slightly higher taxes, with the rates for wealthy likely going up to the pre-Reagan rates, which would be an extraordinarily good thing, as high taxes on the wealthy act as an economic stabilizer, as Lefty Talker Thom Hartmann points out in his book Rebooting the American Dream.

High top marginal tax rates - generally well above 60 percent - on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent the subsequent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth as well as steady and sustained wage growth for working people (Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts by Thom Hartmann. Truthout).

Low taxes on the wealthy have the opposite effect. Tax cuts, such as those instituted under preznit gwb, lead to bubbles and economic destabilization. That, however, is another topic (read the Thom Hartmann article for the full argument).

My point with this post is that that the WSJ lied... and Willis, as a libertarian stooge, claims that Sanders is bad at math. However, the opposite is obviously the case. You can't take spending that is already occurring, change how we spend it, and call it "new" spending. No wait, if you're a dishonest surface-thinking twit like Willis Hart, you can.

OST #75

The Rank Fallacies of Willis Hart #1: Bernie Sanders Never Said The Economy Is A Fixed Pie

This post concerns an 8/22/2015 commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he calls out Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for a number of supposed "fallacies".

Problem is, instead of giving any "rank fallacies", Willis either lies (by attributing views to Bernie Sanders he has never expressed) or by insisting that ideological differences equate to a "fallacy" (Bernie doesn't agree with Willis' Libertarian views because Bernie Sanders isn't a Libertarian).

The first of these phony "rank fallacies" as follows.

Willis Hart: The Rank Fallacies of Bernie Sanders... a) That the economy is a fixed pie and that the only real question is how to divvy it up. (8/22/2015 AT 3:13pm)

Bernie Sanders has never said these words. I'm guessing that Willis believes Bernie Sanders speaking against the sky-high pay of some individuals is the same as saying the economy is a fixed pie? It isn't. Bernie Sanders opposes people taking a bigger slice of the GROWING pie than they deserve. Everyone knows that the US economy grows. When it shrinks that's called a recession, and when it doesn't grow that's stagnation.

But Willis scoffs at the idea that sky-high CEO pay reduces worker pay. According to Hart, "in the larger scope of things [the high pay is]... exceedingly insignificant". But Willis is wrong.

Paying a CEO an exorbitant amount of money does not magically increase the size of the "pie", it naturally (and logically) leaves less money for the workers. When you consider that CEO pay has grown 90 times faster than typical worker pay since 1978 (according to a 7/1/2015 EPI article, these individuals are OBVIOUSLY taking an increasingly larger size of the pie.

So, even though the pie is growing, some are taking a larger slice of that growth than others. That the pie is being divvied up unfairly is what Bernie Sanders is saying! Further proof that this is what is happening is the fact "that in 2009 and 2010, the first year of the current recovery the one percent captured 93% of the income growth".

According to a FED survey of consumer finances, the gap between rich and poor Americans widened during the recovery.

Average... pretax income for the wealthiest 10% of U.S. families rose 10% in 2013 from 2010, but families in the bottom 40% saw their average inflation-adjusted income decline over that period. (Fed: Gap Between Rich, Poor Americans Widened During Recovery by Ben Leubsdorf. 8/4/2014 The Wall Street Journal).

Bernie Sanders has NEVER said the economy doesn't grow. He has never said "the economy is a fixed pie and that the only real question is how to divvy it up". This is one of Willis Hart's infamous strawman.

The United States is the world's largest economy. Yet, in the last two decades... its growth rates have been decreasing. If in the 50's and 60's the average growth rate was above 4 percent, in the 70's and 80's dropped to around 3 percent. In the last ten years, the average rate has been below 2 percent... (Trading Economics).

The rate of growth has been steadily decreasing, while salaries for those at the upper end have been increasing at a MUCH faster rate than the salaries of everyone else. And, since the recession "ended", the wealthy (who saw their incomes go down... as EVERYONE'S did) have recovered (they got 93% of the income growth), while those at the bottom have seen their incomes go down.

Bernie Sanders is RIGHTLY concerned about this. For Willis to call this concern a "rank fallacy" is proof of Hart's rank stoogery in supporting the Libertarian oligarchy-serving fallacy of dismissing the ever-increasing wealth divide.

An example of an ACTUAL statement by Bernie Sanders... as opposed to words suck in his mouth by the lying strawman-loving Willis Hart?

Bernie Sanders: The issue of wealth and income inequality, to my mind, is the great moral issue of our time. It is the great economic issue of our time and it is the great political issue of our time. (Excerpt from a 7/1/2015 speech in Madison Wisconsin at the Alliant Energy Center before an estimated at 10k people).

In regards to this ACTUAL statement concerning income inequality (not fixed pies), PolitiFacts says "mostly true".

Politifact: [Sanders'] claim repeats a finding from a study by two internationally known economists that were supported by two other major economists we contacted. But the study has been criticized, for example, for not including Social Security in the wealth calculations. For a claim that is accurate but needs additional information, a rating is Mostly True. (Bernie Sanders, in Madison, claims top 0.1% of Americans have almost as much wealth as bottom 90%).

A rating of "mostly true" is leagues away from a "rank fallacy", you liar Willis! This is why the Hartster's claim of "rank fallacy" gets a rating of "strawman-pants-on-fire" from me.

Image: French economist Thomas Piketty has warned that unfettered capitalism will lead to even more grotesque wealth inequality because returns on investments like stocks and real estate - stuff the wealthy own - generally outpace economic growth and wages. That warning is looking more and more like a reality in the US, which has seen much more of its income growth going to its top 1 percent of earners in recent decades than any other developed country.

OST #68

Willis Hart Sez I Am A Jackass With A Minuscule Mind B/C I Said Libertarianism Has Infected The Republican Party

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart sez, in a 7/27/2015 commentary from his blog, that I am a jackass with a minuscule mind because I said "Libertarianism has infected the Republican party".

Willis Hart: On the Idiotic Claim that Libertarianism Has "Infected" the Republican Party... The jackass who made this claim has said a myriad of stupid things in the past but this one takes the cake... (7/27/2015 AT 9:12pm).

I was speaking of Libertarian economics, but Willis slams me because the infection does not include being "opposed to war and foreign entanglements, mostly pro-choice on abortion, mostly pro immigrant, mostly in favor of marriage equality, mostly opposed to warrantless wiretaps, mostly opposed to the drug war, etc".

Mostly pro-choice? Perhaps, but two of our nation's most prominent Libertarians, Ron and Randal Paul, both ran as Republicans and both oppose abortion. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, believes in "fetal personhood" and introduced a bill to outlaw abortion.

What about the fact that THREE Libertarians - Ronald Paul, Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman - all ran in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries? Also, Ronald's son Randal (who calls himself "Rand" in honor of Ayn Rand) is running in the 2016 primaries as a Republican. Yet Willis argues that Libertarians are vastly different than Republicans??

"I'm basically a libertarian", Koch brother David said (on 12/14/2014). Although Dave the Libertarian "cares much more about fiscal issues and the economy than about social issues"... which explains why the Kochs are enthusiastically supporting the Republican Scott Walker for prez (infecting our political process with 1 BILLION in campaign spending to support their puppet).

Obviously Libertarianism and Republicanism align STRONGLY when it comes to fiscal matters. So much so that the Kochs can overlook the social regressiveness of Scott Walker, who "opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest [and] swore an oath to uphold the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage [and supports] marriage between one man and one woman".

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Koch man Scott Walker says "American troops should play a larger role in the fight against [ISIS] and that... for political reasons, President Obama isn't willing to expand the role of American troops...".

The Libertarian Randal Paul describes himself as a "social conservative" and sez he does not endorse same-sex marriage... although he supports marriage contracts for same-sex couples. "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage... that being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults" Randal sez. So he favors a second class status for same-sex couples (so that would be NO on marriage equality).

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Randal Paul sez he supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq (although he says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq to begin with). According to the Huffington Post, unlike his more stridently non-interventionist father, Paul sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases (so YES, on foreign entanglements).

In regards to being "pro immigrant", Randal supports granting legal status in the form of temporary visas to illegal immigrants but opposes a "special" path to citizenship.

Conclusion? The only reason "this one takes the cake" is because I dared to tell the truth about Libertarianism, which is that the greed of the oligarchs takes center stage with this ideology. Everything else is secondary, and can be easily set aside in pursuance of the primary goal.

The fact is that "Libertarianism" was created by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which is the very first Libertarian think tank. FEE itself was put together as a big business PR project by GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel, Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, Dupont, Monsanto, Con Ed, BF Goodrich, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch, General Electric and other fortune 500 companies to lobby for special governmental favors.

FEE and the MANY other "think tanks" (actually plutocrat-funded propaganda machines) exist to serve the interests of big business and the uber wealthy. Yes, they attempt to influence public perceptions, but they also lobby government for special favors, belying their stated opposition to crony capitalism.

According to Mark Ames of NSFWCORP (article via AlterNet) if you "pull up libertarianism's floorboards, look beneath the surface... you'll start to get a sense of its purpose"... which is to serve the interests of the billionaire class.

In this regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY has infected our political process. Although, concerning the objectives of both the Republican party and Libertarianism... perhaps it is more of an alignment of objectives as opposed to an "infection".

Regardless, I stand by my characterization. The proliferation of "think tanks" has most certainly had a HUGE impact on the Republican Party. Willis Hart deludes himself when he sez "how can libertarians be pro big business when they are opposed to ALL bailouts and ALL corporate welfare?".

What Willis doesn't realize is that the plutos are playing both sides! So what if it's hypocritical to SAY they're opposed to bailouts or welfare via their "think tanks" but send lobbyists to the Hill to bribe the politicos in exchange for these gifts?

Willis is being fooled by the plutos who are speaking out of both sides of their mouth! They'll tell the true-believers and dupes what they like to hear (via their "think tanks") while doing what is best for their bottom lines (via their lobbyists).

How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies (excerpt from a 3/1/2011 ThinkProgress article by Lee Fang) Koch Industries, the international conglomerate owned by Charles and David Koch, is not only the second largest private company in America, it is the most politically active. ...over the last three years, Koch groups have spent tens of millions to influence government policy — from financing the Tea Parties, to funding junk academic studies... to a large network of state-based and national think tanks. Charles portrays himself as simply an ideological advocate, and says his money to political groups is only meant to "enhance true economic freedom". He chides special interests that have "successfully lobbied for special favors", claiming "crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market". But in reality, the focus of the Koch political machine is geared toward crony capitalism - corrupting government to make Charles and his brother David Koch richer. Koch's Tea Party libertarianism is actually a thin veneer for the company's long running history of winning special deals from the government and manipulating the market to pad Koch profits...

Dupes like Willis (a jackass who has said a myriad of stupid things in the past and continues to say stupid things) have been totally fooled by this "Libertarian" BS. So, yeah, in that regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY is an infection. An infection I suspect is responsible for his Libertarian brain disease.

OST #61

Willis Hart Strawman In Defense Of Koch Plutocrats & Slander Of The Left

Yet another strawman from the strawman-loving Libertarin blogger Willis Hart. This one utterly amazing in it's stupidity.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Hard Left Goes Bonkers Even When the Koch Brothers Spend Their Money on Good (AKA, Nonpolitical) Things; $100 Million to New York's Presbyterian Hospital, $15 Million to Weill Cornell Medical Center, $30 Million to Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $25 Million to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $100 Million to Lincoln Center, etc... How small and spiteful that the new left has become... Now, if only they, the Kochs, had spent that money toward ginning up racial animosity, pushing a discredited narrative, etc... (7/11/2015 AT 8:20pm).

First of all, WTF is Willis talking about? I'm guessing he read some unidentified news story about Koch Brothers charitable contributions and some Leftists criticism of it? Who knows. As usual the idiot assumes that anyone reading his blog consumes the same media he does and will therefore know what the hell he's talking about.

That, or he thinks this is a huge story that everyone should be aware of. Well, I have no effing clue what he's referring to... but I can tell you this - that the Koch brothers donate money to worthy causes is a good thing... although I'm sure they do it to aggrandize themselves as well as to buy good will. And as a tax write-off, of course. Another reason for the donating might even be them viewing themselves as good people and liking doing good things with their money.

I know that one aspect of Willis' worship of wealth is his great admiration for wealthy individuals doing just this sort of thing. He'd much rather wealthy benefactors bequeath a portion of their wealth for the charitable causes of their choice than We The People deciding these priorities (and paying for what We think is important with our tax dollars).

Of course, as a Progressive, I view this reliance of society on the largess of wealthy benefactors to address societal needs as both anti-democratic and a sign of oligarchy (and therefore at least a little troubling). But Willis takes the opposite view. According to him, this is the preferred method by which to accomplish good (and he has written a number of commentaries on his blog praising wealthy people's charity... both past and present).

The reference to spending money "ginning up racial animosity" and "pushing a discredited narrative" is a call back to another commentary on his blog in which he claims that it's a fact that "George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Other Racially Charged Hotspots". And that in Ferguson we ALL KNOW that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie".

To which I say BULLSHIT. We do NOT "all know" that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie". This "lie", as I understand it, came from his friend Dorian Johnson. Several other witnesses say Brown raised his hands briefly. Frankly I think it is more likely that Johnson, in shock from seeing his friend murdered in front of him, wrongly remembered what happened. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This, IMO, is an example of this, and not a "damned lie".

And, in any case, I do not think it matters whether Brown had his hands up in surrender or not. The fact is that Brown was 148 f*cking feet away from Wilson. Something the cops lied about, claiming the distance was only 35 feet. While Brown was running away Wilson should have ducked behind his car and called in the incident. Instead he shot Brown in cold blood, murdering him [1].

Willis' focuses on the "damned lie" to distract from this fact. Just as he distracts from the fact that the Koch plutocrats are attempting to buy the next presidential election by pointing to some worthy causes they are throwing money at (not necessarily for altruistic reasons).

And Willis present ZERO proof that the "hard left" is going "bonkers" over these donations. NONE. He saw or read it somewhere (presumably), but WHERE? How am I supposed to know if this happened or not if Willis is not clear WTF he's talking about? And notice that first he says the "hard left" went bonkers, then that changes to the "new left".

Which is it Willis? And who the hell is he talking about with this reference to the "new left"? Seems to me that the "new left" is anyone who identifies with the Left of today. The Left of the present and not the Left of the past. Which would include ALL Democrats and ALL Progressives, as well as everyone else who identifies with a left-leaning political ideology (Greens, Democratic Socialists, Socialists, etc).

Which is a TOTAL strawman. For example, I watched a segment on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman the other day in which a man working for the Koch brothers and Van Jones appeared. Seems they are joining forces to do something about the fact that the United States prison population is one of the largest (if not THE largest) in the world. Van Jones (who I am POSITIVE Willis would consider a part of the "hard left") was not going bonkers.

Mr. Jones noted that people on his side of the fence normally have problems with MOST of what the Koch Brothers do, but that in this instance they were on the same side, and that working with the opposition when there are areas of agreement is a good thing (and that it should be done).

But the strawman-loving Hart condemns everyone on the Left (or the undefined "new left"), calling everyone in this group "small and spiteful". All while NEVER revealing a source or identifying who, exactly, went bonkers. Or even what these people going bonkers entails. Were these people protesting? Did they issue a statement? What did they say?

I say that Willis can stuff his condemnation sans meaningful details. This post by Willis is nothing but hot air. Him expressing his hate of the Left/Progressives (or the "hard left" or "new left") with a commentary completely devoid of any facts to back up his accusations.

BTW, in regards to Willis' commentary "on the fact that George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson"... I say, which is it? Is this a "fact" or is it "purported"?

According to Snopes this rumor is a mixture of True and False. Snopes points out that "a grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities" but that Soros did NOT give "money to various groups for the express purpose of promoting Ferguson-related protests and riots".

So Willis lies, and that is a FACT. I am not alleging it, I am proving it. You can not call protesting a police shooting of an UNARMED Black man "ginning up racial animosity", you racist piece of shit!

Even if you disagree with the protestors... they still have the right to protest. And they were protesting what they saw as an unjust shooting, NOT "ginning up racial animosity". The "racial animosity" Willis refers to is his own (as well as the animosity of other racists).

But these people ginned it up themselves - when they viewed people legally protesting and (as Willis might put it), "got all butt hurt" at these (as Willis might put it) "assholes" having the nerve to not agree that the shooting was justified.

Footnote
[1] IMO the police lying is more of a "damned lie" than Dorian Johnson (after seeing his friend murdered in front of him) saying Michael Brown had his hands up and was surrendering. 1st, I'm not 100 percent convinced this isn't exactly what happened. And 2nd, if it did not, I'm even less convinced that Dorian Johnson did still not recount the incident - as he remembered it.

OST #60

Another Willis Hart Minimum Wage Strawman (One That Serves The Evil Idea Of Keeping Workers Impoverished)

Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger who hates low wage workers and loves strawmen, recently posted the following on his blog.

Willis Hart: Some Minimum-Wage Perspective... One of my friends at work posted this [see picture below] on her Facebook page and I really think that it hits the mark. The fact of the matter here is that if people want to earn more money, they have to get better skills first. And, yes, the jobs are there, hundreds of thousands of good jobs. (7/11/2015 AT 8:20pm).

Willis thinks this strawman "hits the mark" because he LOVES strawmen. The strawman here being that those who think the minimum wage should be $15 also think nobody else's wage should rise. That the EMT in the image should continue to work long hours at an extremely difficult job... while making the same amount as someone "flipping burgers".

The first individual pictured, which I am guessing is an EMT (due to the image giving a job description but no job title) has a harder job and deserves higher pay. However... the minimum wage sets a floor, and if "burger flippers" got a raise, so would the EMT (or he absolutely should, in any case).

What this Libertarian/Conservative strawman overlooks (on purpose) is the fact that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "one would expect America... to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour". (5 facts about the minimum wage by Drew Desilver. Pew Research Center 5/20/2015).

The reason people like Willis ignore this reality is because they are wealth-worshiping stooges who are using ugly rhetoric like this (demonizing service industry workers) to distract from the fact that CEO pay and profits continue to rise (much faster than the rate of inflation) while wages for these workers are falling behind where they would be if adjusted for inflation.

These workers are greedy and lazy, so say these stooges/dupes. They are even "immoral".

Dennis Marks: One gets money by working for it. The other hopes to get money not by working for it, but by begging for the government to force a company to give it to them. Immoral. (7/12/2015 AT 2:44am).

What is EVIL here is that these stooges think they can get away with demonizing lower wage workers by implying that a desire for a wage that (at least) keeps pace with inflation is "immoral".

Evil, in my opinion, because, instead of a raise - when the minimum wage does not keep pace with inflation - every year low wage workers are actually getting a pay cut! And that money is going straight into the pockets of the plutocrats that people like Dennis and Willis worship (or "celebrate", as Willis sez).

Evil also is the desire of these people to do away with the minimum wage completely. Because without a minimum wage, low wage workers will be subject to the iron law of wages, which says that "that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker". Note that "sustain the life" means that the worker does not die, or that all of them don't die. People can live in miserable abject poverty without dying. Or without ALL of them dying, at least.

THIS is what those who wish to do away with the minimum wage desire for low wage workers. And they also wish to depress the living standards of all other workers (because, as I said earlier, the minimum wage sets a floor and contributes to higher wages for many more workers than just those who earn the minimum).

And if that isn't evil, then I don't know what is.

Image Description: "You're not worth the explanation" you waste of skin!

OST #59

Willis Hart Sez We Should Be "Celebrating" Plutocrats?

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a wealth-worshipping stooge. Evidence of this can be found on his blog in his various blog posts either denigrating working people or praising wealthy individuals whilst worrying that they are carrying far too large a portion of the tax burden.

Although, if called on his proclivity to worship wealth, he denies it. Recently, however, Willis made a statement that is as close to outright declaring wealthy people who use their wealth to influence government to their advantage (the definition of "plutocrat") should be... as he puts it, "celebrated".

Willis Hart: And the real plutocrats (if you go by the top 1% as your criteria) are for the most part doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, engineers, accountants, optometrists, chiropractors, administrators, small business entrepreneurs, etc.; people, in other words, who've gone to college for 6 to 8 years and spent the better part of a decade establishing themselves by working 60 plus hour weeks. Instead of denigrating these people, we should be celebrating them. (7/6/2015 AT 11:42pm).

OK, so the "if you go by the top 1% as your criteria" is complete BS. This criteria Willis lays out has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of "plutocrat". The people he lists are not plutocrats.

So we can throw that section out. What we're left with is Willis saying that the REAL plutocrats should be celebrated.

Proof that Willis, when railing against crony capitalism, is full of shit? I think he might actually support it, as crony capitalism is one of the actions the REAL plutocrats engage in. And he said it (his own words) that the plutocrats should be "celebrated".

Yeah, he did attempt to dissemble in regards to which people fall into the "plutocrat" category (with a list of higher paid professions)... but that was a lie. Those people are not plutocrats, and all one needs to do is look the word up in the dictionary to know this.

Willis is either lying or stupid. Personally I think he lies. Willis knows who the REAL plutocrats are, and he *does* think these people - who use their wealth to bribe politicians to do their bidding - should be "celebrated".

In any case, I put a question mark at the end of the title of this post because Willis might be that stupid. But I doubt it.

OST #58

Willis Hart Idiotic Capital Gains Tax Trickle Down Stoogery

The wealthy-worshiping stooge Willis Hart, in a recent commentary on his Libertarian blog, claimed (in regards to the economic conditions under President Bill Clinton), that "The economy was poised for a recovery in 1993 and if anything the tax hikes retarded it". Then he adds that that "the economy didn't really start to explode until the President and Congress passed the capital gains tax cut in 1996".

And, if you dare disagree with Willis? Well, that's likely because "simple minds have a tendency to seek out simple explanations (those that buttress their narrative)".

So... Willis is arguing in favor of the debunked trickle down (AKA Supply side) economic theory [1]? A theory that Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, admited was "a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" (total bullshit used as an excuse to lower taxes on the wealthy, in other words).

That Willis is making this argument is strange, given the fact that he's spoken in FAVOR of increasing the capital gains tax in the past.

Willis Hart: Under my tax proposal [there would be] a 40% top tax rate of everything over $400,000 a year [and] a doing away of the special consideration for capital gains... (1/22/2012 AT 7:01pm).

Why the hell was Willis arguing for doing away with the special consideration for capital gains, if, when it was cut - by Newt Gingrich and Erskine Bowles (Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff at the time) - the result was economic prosperity?

The economy "exploded" when this tax was cut Willis sez. Still he wished to raise it (and by quite a bit) back in 2012?

And, no, Willis has NEVER authored a commentary proclaiming that he has rethought his previous position. Not a single post exists on his blog that says he changed his mind in regards to the capital gains tax. Not one that says it should stay the same nor one that says it should be lowered.

Talk about a "simple mind".

In any case, the fact is that the cutting of the capital gains tax rate has been the largest single contributor to income inequality [2]. The rich did very well as a result of this tax cut, and (as a result) the stock market did well. But when the stock market does well that does not mean the economy is doing well, given the fact the wealthiest 5% of US households own 70% of the stock, while 47% of Americans do not own any stock at all [3].

When the stock market is doing well we know the rich are doing well - but that's about it. Cutting the capital gains tax rate is actually BAD for the rest of us (as it increases inequality). And the inequality thing also destroys the "trickle down" argument, I think. When the rich do better the rich do better. The wealth does NOT trickle down - inequality increases.

But Willis, given the fact that he is a wealthy worshiping stooge, almost certainly views a stock market that is doing well as indicative of how the economy is doing for average Americans. And now he has apparently reversed his previous position.

That, or the simple-minded stooge just doesn't realize that saying "the economy didn't really start to explode until the President and Congress passed the capital gains tax cut in 1996" is a pro-trickle down argument.

Footnotes
[1] The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs (excerpt) The rich don't generate jobs. Rising tides do not lift all boats. And they probably built that with government help. (4/11/2015 Salon article by Andrew Sayer).
[2] Capital Gains Tax Cuts "By Far" The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds (article excerpt) Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality... (2/20/2013 ThinkProgress article by Travis Waldron).
[3] That "the wealthiest 5% of US households own 70% of the stock" is an estimate based on 2010 figures (the Salon article this info comes from quotes economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University and says the estimate is based on "recent market developments").(Stock ownership: Who benefits? by Stephan Richter of The Globalist. 9/13/2013).

OST #54

On The Stupid Fathead Willis Hart Denigrating Blue Collar Americans & Oinking For Economic Policies To Drive More $ To The Plutocrats

I can't even look at this a$$hole any more (metaphorically speaking). He's continually running down blue collar workers and suggesting the kind of jobs they do should be outsourced to 3rd world wage slaves (SWTD #165). It makes me sick. But this is the worldview of Libertarians. Libertarians like those who hang out at the Contra O'Reilly blog.

People like Contra O'Reilly regular dmarks (real name Dennis Marks).

Dennis Marks: It's like the McDonald's workers doing work worth about $8 an hour and oinking for a handout of $15 an hour without doing a single thing to earn this amount. Other than oink for more money. (1/6/2015 AT 3:58pm).

This would be in stark contrast to those who believe that there is dignity in ALL work. People like Martin Luther King Jr. (SWTD #276).

MLK: So often we overlook the work and the significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the so-called big jobs. But let me say to you tonight that whenever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity, it has dignity and it has worth. (AFSCME Memphis Sanitation Strike 4/3/1968).

So, fast food workers are "oinking" for an increase in the minimum wage? But we used to pay a lot more (when inflation is taken into account). According to Wikipedia, the minimum wage "peaked at about $10 in 1968" (in 2014 dollars).

MLK lead a march on Washington that same year demanding $2 an hour, which would be $15.27 an hour adjusted for inflation.

Yeah, MLK (according to the likes of Willis and Dennis) was one of the worst "oinkers" ever. Or perhaps it is people like Willis and Dennis who are the real oinkers. They're oinking for more money to go to the plutocrats while running down Blue collar workers by referring to the work they do as "chimpanzee jobs" and they're reading books by authors who believe those who protest against inequality (caused by the plutocrats stealing from us) are talentless losers ("talentless" according to "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer and "losers" according to a recent WTNPH post about yours truly).

God, how pathetic and unAmerican.

OST #35