« Some Thoughts On Imposing Tobacco Taxes | Main | Swearing in class »

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Advocating Terrorism

Call me crazy, but isn't this advocating terrorism against the United States?

And why does Glenn Beck keep saying people have been "disenfranchised"?  I don't understand.  Didn't more people vote in this election than any other -- the highest percentage since 1960?  Why wasn't he talking about this in 2000, when the candidate who got 500,000 more popular votes was denied a state recount by the Supreme Court?  I know Beck expresses disbelief at what he's hearing, and he's talking about some "hypothetical" in 2014, but methinks he doth protest too much.  Even the folks at Little Green Footballs are calling this irresponsible.

By the way, that's Stephen "Going Galt" Moore who says that an upper tax bracket of 90 to 95% would mean you pay 90 to 95% of your income in taxes.  Actually, it would mean that you'd pay 90-95% on all income you make over the top threshhold (say, $250,000) -- anything below that would be taxed at a lower rate.  Of course, Obama has merely talked about raising the rate of the top tax bracket to Clinton-era 39.6% levels.  And yet, somehow we are threatened with socialism.

I don't want to go off on a rant here, but just a warning to those of you who cry "Socialism!" in a crowded theater.  Some people might take you a little more seriously than you expected.

HT: Sadly, no!

Posted by Matt Bodie on February 25, 2009 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0111689761f6970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Advocating Terrorism:

Comments

You are pretty out of touch, Matt. Have you ever considered running for Congress? You would be perfect.

Posted by: steve | Mar 1, 2009 8:06:59 PM

"[W]hy does Glenn Beck keep saying people have been 'disenfranchised'?"

He clearly doesn't mean it in the *literal* sense that you've interpreted. I can't speak for him, but it seems that he's prognosticating to 2012 based on the previous 6 months or so in which nothing the federal gov't has done has meaningfully helped ordinary Americans.

For example, in the time since the last election, where Americans elected a new President and House, the federal government has (i) bailed out certain banks, (ii) refused to bail out other banks, (iii) bailed out the auto industry, (iv) seen 'stimuli' passed, and (v) done a lot of talking. Meanwhile, the obligations of the federal government now exceed the world's GDP.

And what have Americans gotten in return? They can only watch (the next vote for "change" is four years away!) as the values in their 401(k)'s, stock portfolios, and houses continue to fall. That is, if they still have any of these things, and aren't part of the rising unemployment.

Thus, for them, it's as if everything the new federal government does is worthless. Which makes their votes worthless. And worthless votes = disenfranchisement, albeit abstractly.

Posted by: Aaron Williams | Feb 25, 2009 1:24:14 PM

True that Glenn Beck is no genius, but he's not really supposed to be; the modern breed of TV news show host is much closer to an entertainer (whose job is to invoke strong emotional reactions) than a journalist (whose job is to provide thoughtful reporting and analysis). Even by modern standards, though, this clip seems over the top.

And I don't think the problem is that Beck is inane (everyone knows that) but that there's a credible media venue that allows him to express whatever uninformed fantasies he wants to imagine, and (worse) that there's no check on this. The media often portray themselves as a critical check on the government, speakers of truth to power, etc., but by this point the media is very much a locus of power, and the scary part about that is that they appear to exercise that power without any effective constraints.

Posted by: Dave | Feb 25, 2009 12:01:16 PM

39.6%, plus potentially another 8% in S.S./Medicare taxes, plus 13% or so if you live in NYC, or California, plus sales, property, etc. taxes. Not quite socialism, but for some of the "rich" well over a 50% marginal tax rate.

Posted by: JR | Feb 25, 2009 11:42:08 AM

"why does Glenn Beck keep saying people have been "disenfranchised"?"

Because Glenn Beck is a grade-A moron. This is generally the answer to almost any question as to why Beck says some stupid statement.

Posted by: Matt | Feb 25, 2009 11:38:35 AM

I call it advocating terrorism because they seem to be arguing that some sort of armed insurrection is justifiable. Aren't they arguing that even army soldiers would change allegiances and fight with their brothers against the tyrannical federal government? As Oklahoma City and 9/11 both show, all you need is a small group of committed believers to commit an act of horrible violence.

Posted by: Matt Bodie | Feb 25, 2009 11:04:44 AM

I don't know if it's advocating terrorism, but it's certainly advertising idiocy. I guess we should be terrified by all the marauding gangs of disenfranchised and suddenly violent citizens that have exploded in the wake of higher marginal tax rates in Europe.

Posted by: Rob Vischer | Feb 25, 2009 10:53:26 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.