i'm curious what matt would say if this diavlog was done after the new regulations were leaked.

I would like to say something nice about this diavlog, but the waves of sanity flowing from the screen overwhelmed me after watching that thing with Althouse. I did like Matt's point about the difference between left- and right-wing think tanks, and what they let their respective side's politicians get away with saying when they're in the minority. To that end, you must watch this video about Michelle Bachmann, featuring an appearance by B'head Chris Hayes. (via, via, via)

Do you sleep bjkeefe?

Quoting sp3akthetruth: Do you sleep bjkeefe?

Sometimes.

Great diavlog. Matt drinking a Red Bull and a Coke? Jeez. No wonder he looks wired. LOL.

And really, how can Obama compete with that?

The bottom line is republicans, that is those who believe and practice self reliance and decency ( dont expect wealthy, connected democrats to pay more taxes than they do ), are more and more estranged from mainstream American society. I see the challenge and task of current day politics to devise a governing system that allows people to peacefully opt out of the government / mainstream society control complex. easy opt outs being social security and unemployment insurance requirements. People should be free to opt out of paying the tax and receiving the benefits. education - if your children dont attend government schools, you should not be required to pay school taxes. At least your first $100K of income and a certain base level of value of your home on which property taxes are levied, should be exempt for school taxes. pharmaceuticals and medical care - let people opt out of FDA restrictions and protections. You can buy and use any pharma drug, but cant sue the drug company for problems from risks you were informed of. Hospitals should be able to refuse care to those who cant pay. And should be

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The bottom line is republicans, that is those who believe and practice self reliance and decency ( dont expect wealthy, connected democrats to pay more taxes than they do ), are more and more estranged from mainstream American society.

I see the challenge and task of current day politics to devise a governing system that allows people to peacefully opt out of the government / mainstream society control complex.

Only one possible answer.

Instead we will get mandatory government indoctrination of all youths through
the little remarked about Americorps national service plan

The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

It eliminates the voluntary nature of the original plan and will instead move to a compulsory

workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.

This would include combining

the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants.

Will that uniform be brown shirts and jackboots?

Quoting piscivorous: Instead we will get mandatory government indoctrination of all youths through
the little remarked about Americorps national service plan

If this is what democrats want, they should be allowed to have it. Kind of obvious, right? The decent, self reliant people who are allowed to opt out of the big brother state and go free would not have to pay the taxes to support the program. In turn, they and their children would not be allowed to participate in it.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: easy opt outs being social security and unemployment insurance requirements. People should be free to opt out of paying the tax and receiving the benefits.

education - if your children dont attend government schools, you should not be required to pay school taxes. At least your first $100K of income and a certain base level of value of your home on which property taxes are levied, should be exempt for school taxes.

pharmaceuticals and medical care - let people opt out of FDA restrictions and protections. You can buy and use any pharma drug, but cant sue the drug company for problems from risks you were informed of. Hospitals should be able to refuse care to those who cant pay. And should be able to limit their liability to malpractice claims.

basically, it is not fair to republicans to be forced to particpate and be controlled by a big government/big society system that they despise

Your description of education is already mostly true, just for communities and not individuals. Wealthy suburbs pay for nice suburban schools with high property taxes. Inner city schools have to rely on a bare minimum

I find it strange that in a time when many of our schools are turning out graduates that can't function in life, i.e. they can't understand the mortgages they signed and couldn't do the basic math to figure out that they really couldn't afford that 3000 sqft house that they were purchasing, we should be requiring students to do mandatory volunteer work instead of reading, writing and arithmetic. You know the basic things one should get from an educational institution.

Quoting piscivorous: Instead we will get mandatory government indoctrination of all youths through
the little remarked about Americorps national service plan

It eliminates the voluntary nature of the original plan and will instead move to a compulsory

This would include combining

Will that uniform be brown shirts and jackboots?

Ah, piscivorous. Good to see you treating opinion pieces as fact once again. Not that I believed this blob of hysteria, but I did look up both the Senate (S.277) and House (H. R. 1388) versions of the bill.* (Numbers obtained from an AP article.) I do not think this editorial writer is quoting from the bills as they stand. For example, the phrase "able young" does not appear anywhere in either -- this is something your source represents as being quoted from "the legislation." Nor do I find the phrase "all individuals," presented by your source as another quote (emph. added):

To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service, including elementary school students.

I think I'll give it up

Quoting pampl: Your description of education is already mostly true, just for communities and not individuals. Wealthy suburbs pay for nice suburban schools with high property taxes. Inner city schools have to rely on a bare minimum from state and national funding, because people without your "decency" think every kid should have at least some chance at living a meaningful life.

bare minimum? as I understand it, NYC public schools spend much more per student than comparable Catholic schools. Is less spent per public school student in Newark than Garfield or Morristown? People should not be forced to be part of a government which is bankrupting them. Democrat types, ever looking to demonize others and get something for nothing, are the majority. The budget deficits they vote for are ruining things for the minority who want to live honestly and within their means. If you dont allow citizens to opt out of the government system you are setting the stage for states and regions seceding from the federal government.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If this is what democrats want, they should be allowed to have it. Kind of obvious, right? The decent, self reliant people who are allowed to opt out of the big brother state and go free would not have to pay the taxes to support the program. In turn, they and their children would not be allowed to participate in it.

Please explain to me how this thinking would (or would not) apply to my desire not to pay taxes to support the military.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: bare minimum? as I understand it, NYC public schools spend much more per student than comparable Catholic schools. Is less spent per public school student in Newark than Garfield or Morristown?

People should not be forced to be part of a government which is bankrupting them. Democrat types, ever looking to demonize others and get something for nothing, are the majority. The budget deficits they vote for are ruining things for the minority who want to live honestly and within their means.

If you dont allow citizens to opt out of the government system you are setting the stage for states and regions seceding from the federal government.

More is spent per student because Catholic schools don't deal with more expensive students like special ed students. Democrats pay for the majority of taxes. You are looking to leech off a society others have built, like all your parasitic kind. You aren't forced to be part of the government. Leave. You can keep your publicly funded education even.

Quoting pampl: Your description of education is already mostly true, just for communities and not individuals. Wealthy suburbs pay for nice suburban schools with high property taxes. Inner city schools have to rely on a bare minimum from state and national funding, because people without your "decency" think every kid should have at least some chance at living a meaningful life.

Cost of schools has little to do with quality.

Quoting pampl: More is spent per student because Catholic schools don't deal with more expensive students like special ed students..

my experience attending catholic schools in NYC was that no one was turned away from grade school because of need or ability. Bad behavior did get you expelled, but that rarely happened. Individuals are capable of much more acheivement than the government schools expect of its students.

Quoting pampl: Democrats pay for the majority of taxes. You are looking to leech off a society others have built, like all your parasitic kind.

narrowly defined within the scope of the mega $trillion budgets of current day governements, I dont disagree with you. Wealthy urban dwellers agree to fund the modern state for their own reasons. I dont see how self reliant people in middle america are leeching off the system, however.

Quoting pampl: You aren't forced to be part of the government. Leave. You can keep your publicly funded education even.

leave as in leave the geographical confines of the country? If the offer is to move to rural, open space areas of the country and be free of the federal government, ... well democrats would not allow that. Too many

Quoting bjkeefe: I do not think this editorial writer is quoting from the bills as they stand. For example, the phrase "able young" does not appear anywhere in either -- this is something your source represents as being quoted from "the legislation." Nor do I find the phrase "all individuals," presented by your source as another quote (emph. added):

I think I'll give it up there, having already treated it with more respect than it deserves. I invite you to present more credible sourcing.

==========
* [Added] It appears that the links to the text of the bills are not persistent. Sorry. You'll have to visit thomas.loc.gov and enter the bill numbers by hand.

[Added] Or see the text as presented on OpenCongress.org (Senate version | House version).

The language of the bills aside (the download took too long), a credible source for that language is found at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/service/

Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. Develop national guidelines for service learning and give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience.

I have no issue with this ideal. My sons already participate in

Quoting breadcrust: Cost of schools has little to do with quality.

that is a fact that democrats like pampl are not willing to acknowledge.

Quoting graz: The language of the bills aside (the download took too long), a credible source for that language is found at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/service/

Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. Develop national guidelines for service learning and give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience.

I have no issue with this ideal. My sons already participate in such a service program through their high school. But I have to concede that the suggestion of "mandatory" would be disconcerting for some. Even for me...
not because I oppose the value of the service ... But based on my reluctance to be forced to comply without consent. I would prefer an opt-in clause.

Oh, for pete's sake. Setting a "goal" (on an agenda, and not in a bill, to boot) is not anywhere near the same thing as mandatory service for all, and 50 hours of community service a year (i.e., one hour per week) for teenagers is not anything like that wingnut editorial that pisc linked to claimed. Did you read that? Please do, if you haven't already. We're talking beyond night and day

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, for pete's sake. Setting a "goal" is not anywhere near the same thing as mandatory service for all, and 50 hours of community service a year (i.e., one hour per week) for teenagers is not anything like that wingnut editorial that pisc linked to claimed. Did you read that? Please do, if you haven't already. We're talking beyond night and day here.

And remember, that wingnut claimed to be quoting "the legislation."

I concede all that, even bringing pete into it. I'm not suggesting that the "goal" is likely to make it compulsory. Question: Why not make it mandatory?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If you dont allow citizens to opt out of the government system you are setting the stage for states and regions seceding from the federal government.

Go ahead. Just try it and see what happens. The last time all you rebellious souls with the political intelligence of Neanderthals opted out of the Union, there was, if I remember rightly, a rather strong backlash.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: my experience attending catholic schools in NYC was that no one was turned away from grade school because of need or ability. Bad behavior did get you expelled, but that rarely happened. Individuals are capable of much more acheivement than the government schools expect of its students.

narrowly defined within the scope of the mega $trillion budgets of current day governements, I dont disagree with you. Wealthy urban dwellers agree to fund the modern state for their own reasons. I dont see how self reliant people in middle america are leeching off the system, however.

leave as in leave the geographical confines of the country? If the offer is to move to rural, open space areas of the country and be free of the federal government, ... well democrats would not allow that. Too many would take up the offer.

When you say "grade school" do you mean your grade school or the public schools? I'm not sure which you're getting at. Regardless, for years schools have been trying to push kids upward into honors and AP classes and shown that the problem really wasn't low expectations. "Self reliant people in middle America" are net

Kind of like the Quebecois, yeah Franco? Those Cro-Magnons up there think they'd better off just separating from Canada. So, so neolithic those Francophiles are. I'm actually with you though. People threatening to secede from the Union is silliness, but it's no different than silly Americans "fleeing" to Canada, Europe, or elsewhere because of Bush.

Quoting graz: I concede all that, even bringing pete into it. I'm not suggesting that the "goal" is likely to make it compulsory.

Question: Why not make it mandatory?

I don't have a solid argument against, but I don't have a good feeling for. It seems to me that kids will get a lot more out of community service if they are encouraged to do it, rather than required. I don't have a problem with a particular school making it part of their required curriculum, and certainly not with parents deciding this for their own kids. But there's just something that smells wrong about the federal government mandating it. Plus, when you think about the inevitable bureaucracy that it'll doubtless spawn, plus the headaches local administrators will have to deal with when they run into temporary situations where there aren't enough places for the kids to do their thing ... the whole thing just sounds like it would turn into a mess. Much better, I think, for the feds to supply funding and motivation and leave it at that. Oh, and brown shirts, of course.

Try searching for mandatory and uniforms. I believe you will find both. It is not unusual that specific wording in a bill changes as it is worked. I don't know which specific version of the text the author was quoting, as introduced, as referred to committee or placed on the calendar. But if the The Examiner, that highly conservative rag from San Francisco, is questioning the effects the bill might have it does make me wonder.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't have a solid argument against, but I don't have a good feeling for. It seems to me that kids will get a lot more out of community service if they are encouraged to do it, rather than required.

I don't have a problem with a particular school making it part of their required curriculum, and certainly not with parents deciding this for their own kids. But there's just something that smells wrong about the federal government mandating it.

Plus, when you think about the inevitable bureaucracy that it'll doubtless spawn, plus the headaches local administrators will have to deal with when they run into temporary situations where there aren't enough places for the kids to do their thing ... the whole thing just sounds like it would turn into a mess. Much better, I think, for the feds to supply funding and motivation and leave it at that.

Oh, and brown shirts, of course.

It sometimes boils down to application of common sense or political savvy.
Setting up a mechanism for opting-in seems like a win/win. Similarly, at today's live online Presidential townhall, Obama made light of legalizing marijuana as a means to

Quoting Lyle: Kind of like the Quebecois, yeah Franco? Those Cro-Magnons up there think they'd better off just separating from Canada. So, so neolithic those Francophiles are.

I'm actually with you though. People threatening to secede from the Union is silliness, but it's no different than silly Americans "fleeing" to Canada, Europe, or elsewhere because of Bush.

Well, there is a tiny little difference: they speak a different language, and Canada has never pretended to be a melting pot. But I have no opinion on the subject since I know so little about Canada. As for silly Americans fleeing Bush, all I can say is that there is a vast difference between the actions of individuals and the actions of states (as in the American system of federalism): Individuals, provided they have the means and the desire, are free to do whatever they please. After all, how many Americans are the descendants of those who fled from other countries?

Quoting piscivorous: Try searching for mandatory and uniforms. I believe you will find both.

Because ... you couldn't? I think I've already done more than enough of your research for you, especially given how obviously idiotic that wingnut editorial was at first glance. Seriously, pisc, if you believe that kind of crap, you're hopeless.

Quoting graz: It sometimes boils down to application of common sense or political savvy.
Setting up a mechanism for opting-in seems like a win/win.

Yeah, it could be, although I would still worry about the bureaucratic overhead.

Similarly, at today's live online Presidential townhall, Obama made light of legalizing marijuana as a means to stimulate the economy. Imagine if he conceded the logic in doing so, without factoring in the political shit-storm that would have followed?

No. He blew that one. People are furious. ;^)

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The bottom line is republicans, that is those who believe and practice self reliance and decency ( dont expect wealthy, connected democrats to pay more taxes than they do ), are more and more estranged from mainstream American society.

I see the challenge and task of current day politics to devise a governing system that allows people to peacefully opt out of the government / mainstream society control complex.

DenvilleSteve writes[...]

-Steve

I am fairly confident if a person wants to quit their job, buy a small piece of land, and go live as a hermit while being completely self-sufficient, they can. No, what you are really asking for, is to be able to live in a society, benefit from living in that society, and not partake in the rules and obligations that are necessary for that society to exist.

By the way, when did this concept become mainstream that a person owes nothing to anyone for their salary, and also that the only thing separating someone with a high salary and a low salary is how hard they worked? I am about 8 months away from becoming an EE (For many of the social-economic spheres I have lived in, that's a borderline "rich" to just outright "rich" job), and I can honestly say I owe almost all of it to the environment I was born into. I find all this Atlas Shrugged like contempt for the people who don't make absurdly large piles of money a little sickening.

A more progressive tax code? The great American economist Irving Fisher spells out the secret in his Constructive Income Taxation: a graduated "income" tax that makes savings tax exempt and thus allows higher marginal tax rates without destroying the incentives to save and invest. In fact quite the reverse. Nunn and Domenici's USA Tax embodied the principle, which is like allowing unlimited contributions to IRA accounts with no penalties for early withdrawals. Nowadays they call it a graduated consumption tax. It requires no more secret bank and brokerage accounts in overseas tax havens and therefore the cooperation of our European allies -- in other words, it is a global idea for our global financial institutions. Let's go there.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am fairly confident if a person wants to quit their job, buy a small piece of land, and go live as a hermit while being completely self-sufficient, they can.

No, what you are really asking for, is to be able to live in a society, benefit from living in that society, and not partake in the rules and obligations that are necessary for that society to exist.

I am interested in how a political system could be structured so that the minority republicans, who believe in self reliance and living within their means, can be legally insulated from the massive debt obligations being run up by the majority democrats.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/185...0:10&out=60:25

States aren't threatening to secede though... mostly individuals or groups of them (perhaps in the name of their State, however). There were some guys in Texas during the first Bush and Clinton years who literally tried to secede and stopped paying taxes, and the Feds went out and arrested them. They even had their own flag and what not.

Quoting bjkeefe: Because ... you couldn't?

I think I've already done more than enough of your research for you, especially given how obviously idiotic that wingnut editorial was at first glance.

Seriously, pisc, if you believe that kind of crap, you're hopeless.

No I didn't have to search as I read the proposed legislation. You do a simple search for a phrase or two and decry that the article is lies. It is you that exhibits the traits of a trotting horse in full blinders. I'm sure that the Germans at first saw the Jugendbund der NSDAP as benign social group formed to help the true peoples of the Fatherland, but we all know where that went.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: A more progressive tax code? The great American economist Irving Fisher spells out the secret in his Constructive Income Taxation: a graduated "income" tax that makes savings tax exempt and thus allows higher marginal tax rates without destroying the incentives to save and invest. In fact quite the reverse.

Nunn and Domenici's USA Tax embodied the principle, which is like allowing unlimited contributions to IRA accounts with no penalties for early withdrawals.

Nowadays they call it a graduated consumption tax. It requires no more secret bank and brokerage accounts in overseas tax havens and therefore the cooperation of our European allies -- in other words, it is a global idea for our global financial institutions. Let's go there.

There's a great article in this month's American Prospect about just that: Post-Consumer Prosperity by my favorite economist, Robert H Frank. BTW, everybody should subscribe to TAP because it's really great.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: By the way, when did this concept become mainstream that a person owes nothing to anyone for their salary, and also that the only thing separating someone with a high salary and a low salary is how hard they worked?

I am about 8 months away from becoming an EE (For many of the social-economic spheres I have lived in, that's a borderline "rich" to just outright "rich" job), and I can honestly say I owe almost all of it to the environment I was born into.

I find all this Atlas Shrugged like contempt for the people who don't make absurdly large piles of money a little sickening.

And how. Congrats on the EE. That is not an easy major.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I am interested in how a political system could be structured so that the minority republicans, who believe in self reliance and living within their means, can be legally insulated from the massive debt obligations being run up by the majority democrats.

As opposed to the portion of the debt run up by majority Republicans? Come on Steve, pretend to be able to think.

Quoting piscivorous: No I didn't have to search as I read the proposed legislation. You do a simple search for a phrase or two and decry that the article is lies. It is you that exhibits the traits of a trotting horse in full blinders. I'm sure that the Germans at first saw the Jugendbund der NSDAP as benign social group formed to help the true peoples of the Fatherland, but we all know where that went.

Wow! One, two, three, GODWIN! That wasn't much of a windup, Pisc.

Quoting AemJeff: As opposed to the portion of the debt run up by majority Republicans? Come on Steve, pretend to be able to think.

Republicans does not equal Republican Legislators.
Expand you consciousness dude, man, bro.

Quoting Sgt Schultz: Republicans does not equal Republican Legislators.
Expand you consciousness dude, man, bro.

Viewed as an example of an "is a" relationship, it's a perfect refutation of what you say. (Look it up.) Viewed through the lens of political will in the context of a democracy, you're still wrong. (Republicans voters, by definition embodying bare majorities in 2002, and 2004, [not even mentioning the bare minority of 2000] were responsible for electing the governing majorities.) It hardly matters how you slice it, you're wrong. But, thanks for checking in, Troop.

Quoting AemJeff: Wow! One, two, three, GODWIN! That wasn't much of a windup, Pisc.

Did you miss his first post where he wrote about brown shirts and jackboots? The man's got VTOL capabilities. To give credit where it's due, I find endlessly entertaining the idea that the problem with the Hitler Youth wasn't the ideology so much as it was the government forcing kids to do things. If only Hitler had shown proper deference to the spare time of Aryan children...

Quoting pampl: Did you miss his first post where he wrote about brown shirts and jackboots? The man's got VTOL capabilities.

To give credit where it's due, I find endlessly entertaining the idea that the problem with the Hitler Youth wasn't the ideology so much as it was the government forcing kids to do things. If only Hitler had shown proper deference to the spare time of Aryan children...

Yeah, I only sort of vaguely noticed the reference the first time around. If this is the best message the VRWC can propagate these days, it's likely to be a long time in the wilderness for these guys.

My, my, my: Matt Yglesias' contempt for everyone other than - well, himself, and a few other lefty bloggers - is really hard to take. Case in point: the moment when he called the entire White House press corps "dumb" because the questions they asked at Obama's press conference weren't the questions he would have asked. (Too lazy to dingalink right now.) Thus, as a guy who is generally inclined to agree with Matt's politics (with the exception of his far too realpolitk foreign policy perspective) I still find him incredibly off-putting. He's far too quick to issue ad homniem attacks against people with whom he disagrees. Mark Schmitt is a welcome presence here, though, and despite the fact that I found this diavlog a tad bit - well, boring - I'm always glad to see him at bhtv.

I just love how the chorus here feels it necessary chime in; even though the significant contribution, that you add, is with nothing but insult and innuendo. I suppose that Jim Jones was one of your heroes. Your belief that it is beneficial for the government to institutionalize the indoctrination of youth while I would prefer that the government be prevented from such meddling.

Quoting piscivorous: I just love how the chorus here feels it necessary chime in; even though the significant contribution, that you add, is with nothing but insult and innuendo. I suppose that Jim Jones was one of your heroes. Your belief that it is beneficial for the government to institutionalize the indoctrination of youth while I would prefer that the government be prevented from such meddling.

Pisc, the "chorus" chimes in because you sing such compelling songs. Your measured rhetoric coupled with the obvious care with which you craft your arguments... who could resist the chance to interact, if only to bask in the reflected glory of perfection?

Quoting nikkibong: My, my, my: Matt Yglesias' contempt for everyone other than - well, himself, and a few other lefty bloggers - is really hard to take. Case in point: the moment when he called the entire White House press corps "dumb" because the questions they asked at Obama's press conference weren't the questions he would have asked. (Too lazy to dingalink right now.) Thus, as a guy who is generally inclined to agree with Matt's politics (with the exception of his far too realpolitk foreign policy perspective) I still find him incredibly off-putting. He's far too quick to issue ad homniem attacks against people with whom he disagrees.

Mark Schmitt is a welcome presence here, though, and despite the fact that I found this diavlog a tad bit - well, boring - I'm always glad to see him at bhtv.

Well, not one of the questions was about the subject of the moment, the bank bailout. And that Ed Henry question, asking Obama about his feelings, that was really, really dumb. Also Matt was dining with his libertarians buddies the night before, so I doubt he thinks they're all dumb too. As for ad hominem, it's too bad there's no Latin phrase meaning, "Don't waste your time listening

To Matt's point of some people's interactions with the government limited to the DMV:
Two things:
1) The interactions of the government with rich people is more than just the DMV--> taxes for one.
2)The point of living in a free country is to be free from government interference. So limiting government interaction with people is a means to the end of creating freedom for individuals.

Quoting piscivorous: I just love how the chorus here feels it necessary chime in; ...

That's a hilarious thing to say, when it's clear you've spent the last month locked in an right-wing echo chamber. I cannot believe you're defending that wingnut editorial. I can't believe you linked to it in the first place. I remember when you were considered one of the thoughtful commenters on this board. The one sign of hope was your immediate temper tantrum when you were challenged on the veracity of the editorial and mocked for being unable to defend it with anything but more empty assertions. Maybe you haven't completely gone round the bend yet, and there's still a small glimmer of sanity left that makes you feel self-conscious when laughed at for believing in someone else's insane rant.

... even though the significant contribution, that you add, is with nothing but insult and innuendo.

Make a respectable case, and you'll be treated with respect. You can't link to something as stupid as that editorial, let alone make an allusion to the Hitler Youth, and expect anything but derision.

I suppose that Jim Jones was one of your heroes. Your belief

Quoting AemJeff: Viewed as an example of an "is a" relationship, it's a perfect refutation of what you say. (Look it up.) Viewed through the lens of political will in the context of a democracy, you're still wrong. (Republicans voters, by definition embodying bare majorities in 2002, and 2004, [not even mentioning the bare minority of 2001] were responsible for electing the governing majorities.) It hardly matters how you slice it, you're wrong. But, thanks for checking in, Troop.

And let us not forget St. Ronald of Reagan, who launched the whole borrow-and-spend mentality of the GOP.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/185...0:10&out=60:25

I still prefer his earlier one: capo di tutti i capi (of the Juicebox Mafia).

Quoting claymisher: There's a great article in this month's American Prospect about just that: Post-Consumer Prosperity by my favorite economist, Robert H Frank.

BTW, everybody should subscribe to TAP because it's really great.

An interesting read. While reading it I couldn't help but wonder what a Libertarian like Will Wilkinson would have to say about it. At least at face value that approach seems like a way to preserve the progressive tax schema while side stepping the major Libertarian critique of high marginal taxes (I.e. Gov't taxation prevents private investment that would produce more benefit.)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: An interesting read. While reading it I couldn't help but wonder what a Libertarian like Will Wilkinson would have to say about it. At least at face value that approach seems like a way to preserve the progressive tax schema while side stepping the major Libertarian critique of high marginal taxes (I.e. Gov't taxation prevents private investment that would produce more benefit.)

Glad you liked it! If you want info more I heartily recommend Frank's "Luxury Fever." If you want a technical treatment, or if you're into Rawls/Nozick, read "Choosing the Right Pond." "Choosing the Right Pond" is one of my favorite books ever. I can tell you what Will Wilkinson would say: "Growth is the cure for everything mumble mumble public choice Hayek mumble mumble ..."

People who advance the argument that individuals should be able to line-item elements of the government they don't approve of probably have no idea of what America would look like afterwards. Here's a hint: high speed internet for all, gym memberships for all, health care for all, dry cleaning for all, free abortions for all, and the Pentagon would be down to 1/4th or less of their current budget. Sure, taxes would go down too. But the reallocation of money from military spending to entitlements would be swift and brutal. European-style, even.

BJ - you totally blew it! it was Flavr-aid not Kool-aid. whats wrong with just saying Flavr-aid? not high class enough for you and your snobbish liberal elite friends? leave a bad taste in your effete mouth? The good upright decent folk like DenvilleSteve and I, we're not too good to say Flavr-aid. hell , we're not too good drink Flavr-aid! When we have our own conservative utopia built on our parasitic relationship with you worthless liberals - it'll be Flavr-aid everyday! It'll stain your upper lip just as well as (un)Kool-aid, you jackbooted, brownshirt wearing liberal fascist!!

This was good. Yglesias is smart. Both thumbs up.