Is Willis Hart Water Tower Material?

This commentary concerns an 9/29/2015 post by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart which he deleted on 10/1/2015.

Willis Hart: Water Tower Material? Let us surely hope not. (9/29/2015 AT 7:58pm).

The odd thing about this post, and the reason I decided to comment on it, is the picture of the individual Willis was asking the "water tower material" question about (see below). Who is this person, I thought? So I clicked on the picture, and the URL that opened suggests that Willis believes this is a picture of me.

I say this because the URL identifies the picture as wd.jpg. "wd" is short for my old Blogger ID w-dervish and is how Willis refers to me. He used to allow me to comment on his blog and that is when he came up with the "wd" abbreviation for my blogger ID.

Question is, if Willis believes this to be a picture of me, where the hell did this idea come from? I have never posted a picture of myself online. The picture is not of me, by the way. Which might be why Willis deleted the post. He realized the picture was not of me. Or he started to doubt it might be me. But why did he think the picture was of me to begin with? And where did the picture come from?

Or perhaps Willis realized that this post accusing someone of being "water tower material" simply because he does not like the person was in bad taste? Given how common these shootings are becoming, I mean. But I seriously doubt it, due to Willis being on the side of those who believe nothing can be done legislatively to reduce gun violence.

Also, in regards to Willis worrying about me being water tower material because I submit unwanted comments to his blog... what's the correlation between submitting comments (comments Willis refuses to publish) and shooting people?

I have no desire to shoot anyone, BTW. I do not own a gun. I have never shot a gun. I'm not even sure if I could figure out how to use it. If I did, I'm positive I'd be a bad shot. I think I'd need a rifle with a laser sight to hit anyone. Not that I want to shoot anyone. I absolutely do not, being the kind of person more likely to kill himself than anyone else (if I decided I needed to harm anyone).

Willis Hart, on the other hand? I think it is possible that Willis might be capable of huring others. Perhaps it might be "necessary" for Willis to shoot dead one (or more) of the violent Blacks he refers to frequently? If Mookie or Ray Ray were to attempt to mug Willis or break into his house?

I think he would feel justified in shooting them dead. As his Libertarian buddy Constitutional Insurgent sez, doing so would result in one less "oxygen thief" and therefore be a GOOD thing.

Certainly this scenario is a lot more probable than "wd" buying (a likely expensive) firearm, ascending a water tower, and killing people by shooting them. Especially considering the fact that I find gun violence abhorrent and am in favor of stricter gun controls.

But Willis is generally opposed to more gun control. He refers to such proposals as being "much more for for solace" than for actually reducing gun violence. This he sez in a commentary where he cites the gun nut John Lott! This Lott nutter authors works of fiction such as More Guns, Less Crime and has been dubbed (by Newsweek) "the gun crowd's guru".

Yes, Willis says "I'm not a gun owner myself and don't particularly care for them", but just because he does not currently have one (if he's telling the truth) does not mean he couldn't go out and buy one.

I mean, I told him I have no desire to own a gun (and, in response he said "I dare wd to put a sign on his lawn that says, gun-free zone"). Yet he thinks that I (as a non-gun owner) might be "water tower material"?

Willis obviously thinks that guns work as a deterrent... so much so that he sez if I put a sign in my yard indicating that I do not own a gun - I'd be certain to get robbed (I do not believe this). So wouldn't it be better to actually have a gun than rely on people not breaking into your home because they think you MIGHT have a gun?

Given Willis' belief in guns deterring violence (in agreement with the nutter John Lott), how can he justify NOT owning a gun? Isn't he just asking to get robbed? Which is why I'm not at all convinced that he isn't a gun owner. And, if he does have one, surely he'd use it to shoot a robber.

So, in regards to killing someone with a gun - while there is a zero chance that I will ever take a life by shooting someone, I'd say the chance that Willis might is higher. How much higher I can't say, but I'd wager it's quite a bit higher. Because, while Willis is probably NOT "water tower material", I could absolutely see him killing someone with a gun during a home invasion.

Heck, Willis might put the "gun free zone" sign in his yard to fool Mookie and Ray Ray into breaking into his home so he could shoot them dead, thereby ridding the world of TWO "oxygen thieves".

By the way, I forgot to mention that this post is yet another example of Hart putting up a post that likely makes sense to absolutely nobody (except him). I mean, I had to click the image and examine the URL to determine who the hell was in the picture (or who he THINKS is in the picture). Anyone else viewing the post was probably confused, wondering WHO Willis was worried about being "water tower material".

But Willis does this quite frequently... simply expects people to know what the hell he's talking about, even when his commentary contains minimal facts (in this one the crucial missing piece of info is the "who" of "who, what, when, where, why"). Yes, this absolutely says Willis would make a terrible journalist... but does it also point to Willis being afflicted with the "brain disease" he frequently accuses others of having? Yeah, I think that's a possibility.

In any case, it is the Hartster who is the gun nut, not I. So, if either of us were to go postal because we're "water tower material", I say the evidence shows that person is FAR more likely to be Willis Hart and FAR less likely to be Dervish Sanders (AKA "wd").

Image Description: Not a picture of wd, although Willis apparently believes it is (at least at the time he posted it, although he may have changed his mind, explaining why he deleted it later).

OST #73

The Rank Fallacies of Willis Hart #3: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Acknowledge The "Fact" That High Tax Rates On The Wealthy Have Negative Consequences

This commentary concerns an 8/22/2015 post by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he calls out Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for a number of supposed "fallacies" that aren't fallacies.

The first of these bogus claims by Hart was that Bernie Sanders said "the economy is a fixed pie and that the only real question is how to divvy it up". I debunked this "fallacy" with OST #68 by pointing out that Bernie Sanders talks about income inequality, not divvying up pies.

Next, I proved that Willis was BSing his readers (as well as himself) when he said Senator Sanders was lying about Bernie saying "the poor and middle class are worse off than they were decades ago" (with OST #70). I showed that, by and large, they ARE worse off.

The third of Willis' phony "rank fallacies" I will debunk as follows.

Willis Hart: The Rank Fallacies of Bernie Sanders... c) That high tax rates on the wealthy don't have negative consequences (mainly that the rich will simply alter their behavior). (8/22/2015 AT 3:13pm).

The wealthy will alter their behavior, of course, but the benefits of raising taxes outweighs the negatives... as per an article by Chye-Ching Huang, a Senior Tax Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Opponents of raising the taxes that high-income households face often point to findings that high-income taxpayers respond to tax-rate increases by reporting less income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as evidence that high marginal tax rates impose significant costs on the economy. However, an important study by tax economists Joel Slemrod and Alan Auerbach found that such reductions in reported income largely reflect timing and other tax avoidance strategies that taxpayers adopt to minimize their taxable income, not changes in real work, savings, and investment behavior. While such strategies entail some economic costs, these costs are relatively modest. (Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy by Chye-Ching Huang. CBPP 4/24/2012).

OK, so the negative consequences of high tax rates on the wealthy are actually only "relatively modest". But, beyond those "relavively modest" negative consequences, we have the fact that it is actually a lot more harmful to the economy for tax rates to be TO LOW, as David Cay Johnston, an investigative journalist and author who specializes in economics and tax issues, speaks to in the following article (excerpt).

...while tax rate cuts can stimulate the economy immediately and, if well designed, encourage the savings and investment to support long-term growth, they can also do harm. When cuts are financed with borrowing, as they have in the post–Ronald Reagan tax-cutting era, it just pushes tax, plus interest, into the future. How taxes are cut matters too. Tax cuts can discourage work, create windfalls for existing investments without encouraging new investment and tilt the playing field in ways that produce unproductive investments. (Tax cuts can do more harm than good by David Cay Johnston. al Jazeera America 9/18/2014).

As opposed to high tax rates discouraging work because high wage earners don't like it that the government takes so much, the reverse is actually closer to reality... high wage earners may be likely to work less if they are taxed less. Because why work as hard as you did (pre-tax cut) when you can work less and net the same money?

By the way, yes, this applies to high wage earners, because these are the kind of workers who have the ability to set their own hours. At least more often than middle and lower income wage earners, who ususlly can only work the hours they are given by their employers.

In regards to tax rate cuts that stimulate, these would be tax cuts on middle and lower income wage earners, because most working people spend all that they earn. With more money in their pockets, these workers are spending more (and thus stimulating the economy more).

Rich people, on the other hand, are more likely to stash that money in a (possibly offshore) bank account, or look for an investment they can put their tax cut money into... which, might sound like it would be economically stimulative, but could actually be economically harmful. Very harmful, in fact.

[Author] Larry Beinhart... looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people). On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 article on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring '20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929. (The Great Tax Con Job by Thom Hartmann. Huff Post Politics 5/25/2011).

According to Larry Beinhart's 2008 article (the one Thom Hartmann references)...

Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash. High income taxes correlate with economic growth. Income tax increases are followed by economic growth. Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy. (Tax Cuts: Theology, Facts & Totally F**ked by Larry Beinhart. Huff Post Politics 12/18/2008).

george w. bush, aside from totally f*cking us by creating ISIS when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, also f*cked us by lowering taxes on the wealthy, which (along with the deregulation of Wall Street) lead to the housing bubble that crashed the economy.

Tax cuts on high income earners historically lead to bubbles and crashes, as Beinhart shows in his article. His examples are Hoover, Reagan and bush the lesser... all presidents whose tax cuts were followed by recessions. (The Bush Tax cuts CAUSED the economic crisis).

Given these facts, why the hell would anyone argue against raising taxes on wealthy individuals as Willis Hart does, saying there are "negative consequences"? The consequences are CLEARLY negative when taxes are too low and POSITIVE when they are higher. And because tax rates have been too low since the Reagan presidency is why middle class wages have been largely stagnant for the past 30-plus years... and why lower-income workers are losing ground (see chart below).

Bernie Sanders knows this. Instead of being a "rank fallacy", Bernie Sanders, in advocating for higher marginal tax rates, is an economic truth-teller. And Senator Sanders' truth-telling on this matter strongly illustrates why this man should be our next president. Hillary Clinton, while she might be in favor of a small increase, isn't a Progressive.

I'd say it's doubtful Hillary would support the Congressional Progressive Caucus' (CPC) People's Budget which "creates fair tax rates for millionaires and provides needed relief to low- and middle-income families". (The People's Budget "returns to Clinton-era tax rates for households making over $250,000 and implements new brackets for those making over $1 million"... the top rate, for people making more than $1 billion, is 49 percent).

Bernie Sanders, given that he's he is one of six Progressives who established the CPC in 1991, absolutely would support the People's Budget (or some variant of it that raised taxes on higher-income earners up to around 50 percent). A president Sanders would push a budget that would stop the very negative consequences of bubble-and-bust caused by taxes that are too low. Frankly I'd call ignoring this consequence is "rank fallacy" of the Hartster, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders acknowledges this truth, while Willis embraces Libertarian/Conservative lies about it/pretends the opposite is true.

Image: This chart shows that in recent decades the rich are getting richer, the middle class and poor got richer, then poorer... with the poor worse off in 2010 than they were in 1983... so poor households are worse off than they were decades ago, both in relative and absolute terms. (Chart source: The Lost Decade of the Middle Class. Pew Research Center 8/22/2012).

OST #72

Willis Hart Utter Bullshit Re Hillary Clinton email Controversy Being "Devastating"

A number of recent posts from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in regards to the supposed Hillary Clinton email controversy. This focus on the hated Hillary after authoring a number on the hated "socialist" Bernie Sanders (who is actually a Democratic Socialist). Both of whom are potential candidates for the presidency in 2016... on the Democratic side.

Is it strange that there have been zero commentaries from Willis concerning Republicans running for POTUS? Or just about zero. He has attacked some of the bottom-tier candidates, such as Lindsay Graham. And I think he has attacked Donald Trump... as if such an easy target counts for diddly.

Nope, this (formerly identified) Blue Dog Democrat is mainly going after the top-tier Democratic potus hopefuls, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Willis Hart: The Good News and Bad News for Hillary... a) The good news - the fact that she (arguably) has plausible deniability as to whether or not she knew that the emails were classified... b) The bad news - the fact that if she asserts this as a defense she looks like a total incompetent and a moron. (8/31/2015 AT 8:32pm)

This one following another in which he quotes Peter van Buren, a former United States Foreign Service employee and author.

Willis Hart: Peter Van Buren on Hillary's Claim that the Emails Weren't Marked as Classified and so She Shouldn't Be Held Accountable... "If an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment". [etc, etc]. This is devastating and if you think that Mr. Van Buren is some sort of virulent right-winger [he isn't] (8/26/2015 AT 4:13pm)

"Devastating" huh? Not according to a number of other experts.

The Associated Press reported that "Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification". Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience. Toobin writes that "government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security". (Wikipedia/Hillary Clinton email controversy/Journalists and experts).

So Hillary was supposed to "recognize the sensitivity" "in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification"? She was supposed to recognize when something was not marked classified but should have been due to turf protection, embarrassment avoidance, or for another reason that had little to do with national security?

Also remember that we're talking about emails they decided LATER should be classified.

"None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III said in a letter to congressional committee leaders Thursday [7/2/2015]. (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

OK, so not marked classified... and also totally unreasonable to expect Hillary might be able to guess what might be categorized as classified in the future.

Other documents... show the classification issue triggered debate even within the agency. Some at State wanted to deem even more of Clinton's emails classified than the agency ultimately did... (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

Here we have the State department arguing about what is and what isn't classified (after the fact)... and yet Willis (and this Peter Van Buren fellow) think Hillary should have know what what might be categorized as classified in the future? Obviously the argument is ridiculous.

As for the original allegation, which is that Hillary did something wrong by using a private email and server, Willis addressed this as well.

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Clinton's Claim that Colin Powell Also Had a Private Email Server When He Was Secretary of State and So What's the Big Deal?... Utter bullshit. The fact of the matter is that NO previous Secretary of State has ever had a private email server running in their home from which they sent and received ALL of their correspondence while in office. Nada! (8/24/2015 AT 8:04pm)

Actually, "no big deal" isn't the argument. The argument is that what Hillary did was legal/allowed.

...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).

There is nothing to this so-called scandal. Zippo. Nothing in regards to the legality of maintaining a private email and server. It was legal at the time for Hillary to do this. Also nothing to the "classified" issue, as "none of the emails reviewed had classification or dissemination markings".

The ONLY reason this is a "scandal" is because Hillary Clinton is running for president and the Republicans are desperate to find something to damage her chances. It won't work, however. There will be no "devastation" to Hillary's campaign. Which is why I declare the total moron Hartster's proclamation of "devastating" to be utter bullshit.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, specifically in regards to the email controversy).

9/14/2015 Update/Correction: According to an 8/21/2015 Reuters article dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest. Does this mean that there is something to Willis' commentary (re what Peter Van Buren said)? Perhaps. Except for the "devastating" part. There will absolutely be no devastation to HRC's campaign.

See also: SWTD #313.

OST #71

The Rank Fallacies of Willis Hart #2: Bernie Sanders Truth-Telling Re Poor & Middle Class Being Worse Off

This commentary concerns an 8/22/2015 post by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he calls out Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for a number of supposed "fallacies" that aren't fallacies.

The first of these bogus claims by Hart was that Bernie Sanders said "the economy is a fixed pie and that the only real question is how to divvy it up". This is something Senator Sanders has never said. He speaks of income inequality, not divvying up fixed pies (see OST #68 for my full response).

The second of Willis' phony "rank fallacies" as follows.

Willis Hart: The Rank Fallacies of Bernie Sanders... b) That the poor and middle class are worse off than they were decades ago. (8/22/2015 AT 3:13pm)

The poor and middle class ARE worse off than they were decades ago... relatively speaking. Bernie Sanders has never claimed that they are worse off in absolute terms.

As illustrated in the charts below, clearly middle and lower class incomes have been steadily declining... on a relative basis. Bernie Sanders speaks of a "40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else", and (as these charts show) this ABSOLUTELY is the case.

The rank fallacy spreader here is Willis Hart. Although the economy continues to grow, most of those gains have gone to the top, with the middle class losing ground since 2010 (The Lost Decade of the Middle Class: Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier) and the poor actually being worse off than they were in 1983.

Image1: The middle class's share of aggregate income has fallen. Relatively speaking, the middle class is worse off than they were decades ago. (source of chart: Census Report Shows Middle Class Decline in 2011 by Benjamin Landy. The Century Foundation 9/13/2012).

Image2: This chart shows that in recent decades the rich are getting richer, the middle class and poor got richer, then poorer... with the poor worse off in 2010 than they were in 1983... so poor households are worse off than they were decades ago, both in relative and absolute terms. (Chart source: The Lost Decade of the Middle Class. Pew Research Center 8/22/2012).

OST #70

On The Warped Logic And Dogma Adherance of Willis Hart

This post concerns another commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he calls out Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. This time for his "dogma" re a non-acceptance of the Libertarian argument against increasing the minimum wage.

Willis Hart: On the Warped Logic of Bernie Sanders... Alright, let's see if I've gotten this straight. He embraces the notion that by taxing carbon you get less carbon but he won't even entertain the notion that by making it much more expensive to employ people (through copious mandates) you get less employment... Nah, no dogma goin' on here. (8/25/2015 AT 9:49pm)

What's warped here is that Willis thinks the "if you tax something you get less of it argument" applies equally to the argument that says carbon can be reduced by taxing it to the Libertarian argument that says the minimum wage reduces employment.

This is an easy one to knock down because employers are already employing as few people as possible in order to make a profit. Or, that is their continual goal... as less people doing the same work means more profit. Does Willis think that with no minimum wage employers will hire people they don't need? What, out of charity?

Businesses exist to make money. They cannot make money if the work that they need to have done to make that money can't get done due to a lack of workers. Does Willis think they're going to fire people out of spite?

Unless the profit margin was very low and the wage increase eats up all the profit... and if that is the case... that business probably wasn't working with a good model to begin with.

I mean, if you look at the cost of labor as a percentage of the cost of a finished good or service, that percentage is usually quite low. For most industry sectors, labor represents less than 3 percent of the cost of the finished good or service (according to BizStats, a website that touts itself as "the home of free, accurate business statistics". Specifically the page "Cost of Labor: Cost of Goods Sold").

And, according to the US Department of Labor, it is a myth that "increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs".

In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front." (Minimum Wage Mythbusters).

Taxing carbon, on the other hand, WILL cause companies to look for ways to reduce their output. Reducing the number of workers they need... that's something they're ALREADY doing. They're not currently looking for ways to reduce their carbon output because there is no cost to them spew as much carbon as they want (where as it would cost them to reduce their carbon).

A tax on carbon incentivize them to reduce their output. An increase in the minimum wage might further incentivize employers to try and reduce their workforce, however (1) that is something they are already doing anyway, and (2) paying workers more will stimulate the economy, thus producing more demand... so these businesses will likely need more workers to meet the increased demand.

Which is exactly what the US Department of Labor says. Raising the minimum wage will have an overall POSITIVE effect.

So, warped logic? Dogma? Nope to both. The only warped logic being adhered to is the warped logic that forms the basis of Libertarian ideology. The logic of Willis Hart, in other words. Bernie Sanders is NOT a Libertarian, and therefore rejects the BS that makes up Libertarian dogma. A person who has the facts on their side does not need to resort to dogma. Something that is clearly not the case with the Hartster.

OST #69

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

Shooting Prognosticators In A Barrel

This post concerns a prognostication from the Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford that turned out to not be that accurate. As well as another from the Libertarian Willis Hart that came closer, but still missed the mark.

Rusty Shackelford: Shit... even Rusty could write the Republican AD's for 2012, fish in a barrel. In 2008 Obie was just the former community organizer and junior Senator without a past. In 2012 he will be forced to run on his record and all the flowery hope and change B.S. wont mean a thing. (7/6/2011 AT 9:28pm). Willis Hart: In a normal environment, I would probably agree with you, Russ. But with the Republicans currently in such disarray (and even unpopular in certain states like Florida or Ohio) and the huge dissatisfaction with the Republican field, I would have to give Mr. "Obie" (why do you have to call him that, Russ - he is the President, after all?) at least a 50-50 chance next year... Me - I'd still like to see Bloomberg get in. (7/6/2011 AT 9:28pm).

Obviously we know that Barack Obama retained the presidency when the votes were tallied. Much to the chagrin of Karl Rove, who, I'm convinced, was positive that GOP operatives had fixed the results for Romney. (see second video below).

Whether Anonymous prevented the election from being fixed or not, Rusty was obviously dead wrong with his prediction. Willis Hart's prediction of 50-50 was essentially meaningless, as around 50-50 is how presidential elections have been going for awhile now. As for Obama winning due to "the Republicans currently in such disarray", I say... maybe.

They certainly did their damndest to obstruct the Obama agenda and to purposefully hold back a recovery (as per their Caucus Room Conspiracy). And it met with a lot of success, in that the recovery was weak and the American people were fooled (blaming the Obama Administration for Republican obstructionism). This, plus the normal dirty tricks (disenfranchising voters as well as vote manipulation) and they got close.

But the disarray, I believe, is not something that can be categorized as "current". I would say current and ongoing. If by "disarray" you mean not appealing to a majority of the voters. However, if by "disarray" you mean not cheating to the max, then no, they I say they are still working that game.

Working it because it is the only way they can win (by cheating). By the way, even though bush LOST the popular vote by 543.89 thousand in 2000, and "won" it by 3.01 million in 2004, the conservative media declared that the 2nd "win" was a decisive mandate for bush's agenda.

Compare that to Obama, who won the popular vote by 9.55 million in 2008 and 4.98 million in 2012 - and he has no mandate for his agenda. If he spent his political capital to pass the ACA, then why didn't Republicans accept it as the "law of the land" instead of (futilely) voting to repeal it so many times?

Instead he is actively obstructed. Even when Obama attempted to meet the Republicans halfway and included ideas in his legislation that previously received Republican support!

My point is that Obama's record is more the Republican's record (of obstruction). He would have done MUCH better if the GOP had acknowledged HIS mandate (a mandate larger than bush's). So - Rusty wrong in regards to Obama running on "his record" in 2012 and Willis wrong in regards to the Republicans being in "disarray". Both wrong in regards to Obama's chances of winning. He won by a narrower margin than in 2008, but still came out further ahead (popular vote wise) than did bush when he ran against Kerry in 2004 (Obama won that one with 1.97 million more popular votes than bush).

In regards to Willis defending Obama re Rusty's disrespect (don't call him Obie)... NOW the Hartster says he does not like him personally as well as politically (5/11/2013).

Video1: Fox News, Karl Rove Argue Over The Outcome In Ohio (2:50).

Video2: Sam Seeder discusses the claim by the hacker group Anonymous that they prevented Karl Rove from stealing the 2012 election (2:43).

Update 2/7/2018: Rational Nation makes a prediction and Rusty Shackelford responds.

Rational Nation: ...don't be at all surprised when the next real crash happens, as it surely will. When it does it will partially the result of excessive deregulation. But don't take my word for it. Listen to credible economists. Something trump is not. (2/6/2018 AT 2:12pm). Rusty Shackelford: ...he doesn't deserve a retort for his silly childish comments. He runs around numerous blogs making stupid predictions that are always wrong. Notice that when I pinned him down on his idiotic "real crash" comment he hauled ass. (2/6/2011 AT 5:57pm).

OST #67