Al Franken's Bad Faith at New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 5-4-05
Franken's Bad Faith
This just in:
Al Franken just said that “progressive indexing” is pernicious. Al “the coward” . . .? No we must now call him Al “the liar” Franken on Friday said he agreed with Mr. Bush that we should protect the poor elderly. He said he agreed with “progressive indexing” and he repeated this again on Monday (5-2-05) but said his only objection was that it should start at the 40k a year bracket.
Now Al “the liar” says it is pernicious: highly injurious or destructive, wicked. On Friday and Monday he supported progressive indexing and today it is “pernicious.”
But he again says he agrees with E. J. Dionne who wrote:
“The real costs of progressive indexing as currently conceived would be paid by middle-income earners -- those with incomes in the range of $35,000 to $60,000 a year.” --- E. J. Dionne
E. J. Dionne says it would begin just where Al “the liar” Franken said 48 hours ago it should start. Now it is pernicious.
He offered no explanation for his about-face. Not even an oi ve.
In just a few hours of initiating coverage Al “the liar” Franken is exposed in a series of lies about Social Security. He started agreeing with progressive indexing and today someone has gotten to him. It is like Stalin’s Russia. One day one political position is acceptable and the next day you are “obnoxious” to suggest such a pernicious point of view.
(Of course if we stopped sending Social Security checks to the top 20% (who have incomes in retirement of over $75,000), then we could use that money to open individual accounts for the bottom 20% of wage earners. Give them back their money in savings accounts. Instead of a $1,800 check to a rich retiree, we could deposit $600 into savings accounts for three workers in the bottom 20%. And that is just the first month. Next month we could deposit $300 into the accounts of six workers in the next to the bottom 20%, and so on.)
How can anyone take The Liar Franken seriously? Franken is acting in bad faith. . . . Developing . . .
Later Franken had Tom Oliphant on. At one point, discussing the “unfunded liabilities” Oliphant started to move the discussion beyond Social Security, . . . he started to say, “Social Security is only the tip of the iceberg---” Then Franken interrupted him.
Franken thought that was funny.
See?
I had pointed out that Social Security was just a symptom of the dishonesty of our political discussion . . . and here was Tom Oliphant picking up the thread of the discussion, and Al Franken thought it was funny to interrupt Oliphant and stop him from pointing out that America had failed to secure its future . . .
What was funny?
And Al Franken wants to run for Senate. And why? To be yet another dishonest politician? Just what the Senate needs. To be one of a hundred liars. And then he will be a success?
He has a radio program. He can discuss any subject. He can have any guest. He chose Tom Oliphant, and Oliphant started to talk about the other examples of “unfunded liabilities” but Franken interrupts him. . .
I just want to die.
Franken and and . . . everyone . . . do not see a problem with asking three average working guys, with families, with average IQs, average wages, that is $16 an hour, asking these working stiffs to pay Social Security payments to retired Harvard professors with 130 IQs, with retirement incomes (non Social Security incomes) twice what the working stiffs earn, (combined!), . . . f--- you.
Franken does not see the problem with asking these same workers to pay the pensions of the airline pilots, who have IQs of 120, who earned $200,000 a year, and who did not give a damn for the workers.
Now they will add health insurance that these same average workers will pay for the middle and upper classes so that they do not lose their homes . . . make people who can not afford a home, make them pay the health bills of the upper classes so they can keep their homes . . .
In other words Franken will do nothing to change the gaping social inequalities, he just wants to add Federally subsidized pensions, national health, oh, yes and pay off those Social Security “bonds” etc. etc. add it all onto the backs of the “unfortunates.”
And because one lie requires the next he justifies this by advocating “progressive taxation.” See? Perhaps there is unfairness in the payments to the rich. Perhaps there is unfairness to the tax exemptions given to the rich, (the Imus ranch or the Gallo Brothers wine institute, for example). But that is ok because it is their money, right?
But what if progressive taxation is another lie? What if taxes, like all other costs, are redistributed by the dynamics of the market place, and passed on in prices?
Then the only way to make public expenditures “progressive” is in the actual payouts.
Who gets the money?
If the money goes to the well off it is regressive.
But what is the point?
No one is out there. Franken interrupts Oliphant and only Franken, and Oliphant, and I know why he was interrupted.
And so this is another reason for my protest. I want to live, but I will protest Al Franken’s Bad Faith. Go to the Senate you bastard with my blood on you.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 5-4-05
Franken's Bad Faith
This just in:
Al Franken just said that “progressive indexing” is pernicious. Al “the coward” . . .? No we must now call him Al “the liar” Franken on Friday said he agreed with Mr. Bush that we should protect the poor elderly. He said he agreed with “progressive indexing” and he repeated this again on Monday (5-2-05) but said his only objection was that it should start at the 40k a year bracket.
Now Al “the liar” says it is pernicious: highly injurious or destructive, wicked. On Friday and Monday he supported progressive indexing and today it is “pernicious.”
But he again says he agrees with E. J. Dionne who wrote:
“The real costs of progressive indexing as currently conceived would be paid by middle-income earners -- those with incomes in the range of $35,000 to $60,000 a year.” --- E. J. Dionne
E. J. Dionne says it would begin just where Al “the liar” Franken said 48 hours ago it should start. Now it is pernicious.
He offered no explanation for his about-face. Not even an oi ve.
In just a few hours of initiating coverage Al “the liar” Franken is exposed in a series of lies about Social Security. He started agreeing with progressive indexing and today someone has gotten to him. It is like Stalin’s Russia. One day one political position is acceptable and the next day you are “obnoxious” to suggest such a pernicious point of view.
(Of course if we stopped sending Social Security checks to the top 20% (who have incomes in retirement of over $75,000), then we could use that money to open individual accounts for the bottom 20% of wage earners. Give them back their money in savings accounts. Instead of a $1,800 check to a rich retiree, we could deposit $600 into savings accounts for three workers in the bottom 20%. And that is just the first month. Next month we could deposit $300 into the accounts of six workers in the next to the bottom 20%, and so on.)
How can anyone take The Liar Franken seriously? Franken is acting in bad faith. . . . Developing . . .
Later Franken had Tom Oliphant on. At one point, discussing the “unfunded liabilities” Oliphant started to move the discussion beyond Social Security, . . . he started to say, “Social Security is only the tip of the iceberg---” Then Franken interrupted him.
Franken thought that was funny.
See?
I had pointed out that Social Security was just a symptom of the dishonesty of our political discussion . . . and here was Tom Oliphant picking up the thread of the discussion, and Al Franken thought it was funny to interrupt Oliphant and stop him from pointing out that America had failed to secure its future . . .
What was funny?
And Al Franken wants to run for Senate. And why? To be yet another dishonest politician? Just what the Senate needs. To be one of a hundred liars. And then he will be a success?
He has a radio program. He can discuss any subject. He can have any guest. He chose Tom Oliphant, and Oliphant started to talk about the other examples of “unfunded liabilities” but Franken interrupts him. . .
I just want to die.
Franken and and . . . everyone . . . do not see a problem with asking three average working guys, with families, with average IQs, average wages, that is $16 an hour, asking these working stiffs to pay Social Security payments to retired Harvard professors with 130 IQs, with retirement incomes (non Social Security incomes) twice what the working stiffs earn, (combined!), . . . f--- you.
Franken does not see the problem with asking these same workers to pay the pensions of the airline pilots, who have IQs of 120, who earned $200,000 a year, and who did not give a damn for the workers.
Now they will add health insurance that these same average workers will pay for the middle and upper classes so that they do not lose their homes . . . make people who can not afford a home, make them pay the health bills of the upper classes so they can keep their homes . . .
In other words Franken will do nothing to change the gaping social inequalities, he just wants to add Federally subsidized pensions, national health, oh, yes and pay off those Social Security “bonds” etc. etc. add it all onto the backs of the “unfortunates.”
And because one lie requires the next he justifies this by advocating “progressive taxation.” See? Perhaps there is unfairness in the payments to the rich. Perhaps there is unfairness to the tax exemptions given to the rich, (the Imus ranch or the Gallo Brothers wine institute, for example). But that is ok because it is their money, right?
But what if progressive taxation is another lie? What if taxes, like all other costs, are redistributed by the dynamics of the market place, and passed on in prices?
Then the only way to make public expenditures “progressive” is in the actual payouts.
Who gets the money?
If the money goes to the well off it is regressive.
But what is the point?
No one is out there. Franken interrupts Oliphant and only Franken, and Oliphant, and I know why he was interrupted.
And so this is another reason for my protest. I want to live, but I will protest Al Franken’s Bad Faith. Go to the Senate you bastard with my blood on you.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home