Up with Chris Hayes 1/28/2012 -- Fairness and values

I can only watch a little over an hour of Up with Chris Hayes -- going into the second hour, I get a little too much progressive spin and I get dizzy. This morning the guests were Richard Kim, Carolyn Maloney, Josh Barro and Heather Mcghee. There were two main topics -- Romney's taxes and Citizens United. Romney's taxes led to the tax code in general and issues of fairness. Barro explained that many investors like Romney who pay the legal capital gains tax rate have already been taxed once on corporate income, so the claim that the rich are paying lower tax rates than a secretary making $60,000 is bogus. One way to think about this is to acknowledge that there are more middle class and poor people, so if the rich were paying lower rates, how do you explain the top ten percent of tax payers paying 70% of all taxes. Also, 47% of households pay no income tax at all -- none. But this is not what I want to write about. Anyone honest knows the rich pay the lion's share of taxes. 

Heather Mcghee acknowledged double-taxation on rich people, but she said Obama is talking about values and fairness, and that most people won't hear about or understand the double-taxation issue -- they will only hear that the wealthy should pay their fair share. McGhee is obviously fine with this, and no one challenged her claim. First of all, more people than McGhee realizes might understand this issue, but let's look at what McGhee is saying. Do we "value" deceit over facts? Is it "fair" to lie about the amount of taxes paid by wealthy individuals in order to make it appear they are doing something unethical or even illegal? Maloney made several jabs at Romney's offshore accounts without explaining any details about the investments, suggesting something nefarious is going on. This is Obama's position on fairness and values -- to lie and deceive? And as long as the public doesn't figure it out, it's okay?

Later on they started talking about Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Adelman. Adelman is a billionaire casino owner who has given Gingrich up to 10 million dollars to help Gingrich's campaign. Maloney said that the contribution bought the SC primary. There's no proof of this, and there was no explanation from Maloney why Gingrich is now losing in Florida. Barro was the only guest who questioned the wild claims regarding money in politics. Hayes wondered what would happen when billionaires started putting hundreds of millions in campaigns and even a billion or so. If billionaires can buy the presidency, what then? Indeed, what then? First of all, as Barro pointed out, there's no evidence that pouring more money into a candidate's campaign will ensure victory. As more and more people hear the ciriticisms of Big Money in campaigns, the more sceptical they will become. Hayes said there is evidence that winners in elections usually have spent the most money, but this can just as easily be explained by the best candidate attracting the most financial support. Most people don't send their money to bad candidates who have no chance of winning. Of course the candidate who pleases the most voters will usually attract the most financial support. On the other hand, with Ross Perot and Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, there's evidence that just throwing money at a campaign doesn't enable a win. And, this will be the case with Gingrich. Adelman is wasting his money.

The other big problem that no one discussed, not even Barro, is the feeding trough in Washington DC that attracts the wealthiest hogs who want to purchase favors. Our interventionist government attracts rent-seekers and lobbyists and campaign dollars -- all wanting protection from some form of competition or government intervention. The tax expert they had on the show said, in relation to Adelman getting a casino license in Hong Kong, government decides who gets rich and who stays poor -- he didn't reaslize how this came across, and the panel was silent for a second or two.

If we had a limited government, it wouldn't matter so much to big corporations who's going into office, as long as they were efficient, honest public servants, because the elected politicians couldn't regulate some businesses out of business while protecting others, so there would be no need to pay for protection.

The panel came around to the realization that it's naive to think money can be kept out of elections -- they just want to change the source of the money. Progressives and liberals would be fine if media corporations provide the stage for campaigns, because then media personalities can give the analysis and insert themselves into the elections with no rebuttals from Fat Cats in the dirty part of the private sector.

Demonization of productive activity and wealth creation is a dangerous route to take -- it already has the economy on the ropes. Until Americans can see that shifting the blame from government intervention to capitalist greed is our government's Big Lie, solutions will be hard to come by. Yes, there are people in business who are dishonest and afraid of competition, but they can only thrive in a statist system. In a free market, the dishonest business people who are afraid of competition don't do so well.

Morning Joe 1/27/2012 -- Osama bin Laden is dead

On Morning Joe today during the first segment Mark Halperin, David Gregory, Eugene Washington and a few other regulars turned up the propaganda after analyzing the Republican primary race. MSNBC is making a case for Obama's re-election and Morning Joe is one of their tools. Every once in a while, Scarborough will say something rightwingish and Mika will wince and wrinkle her nose, the guests will rib him, Joe might even raise his voice for minute to show how serious he is about certain principles, like "small" government, then they'll laugh and Scarborough will, in a good natured way, say he's surrounded by Lefties -- and in the end they all agree that Obama is doing better than expected.

Every once in a while Valerie Jarrett will come on to reinforce all the reasons why Obama will win. MSNBC will turn up the volume on the Obama cheerleading the closer we get to the election. This morning they had 3 Democrat governors on from the auto industry states. Obama not only killed Osama bin Laden, he saved the auto industry. Obama is a true hero, no doubt. As the governors said, Romeny would have let the auto industry die, and we wouldn't have any new cars and trucks. Well, they didn't say we wouldn't have any new cars and trucks, but they said Romney would have let the auto industry die, and the result of that would have to be no new cars and trucks. Whew -- I'm glad Obama was elected. I'm also glad he killed Osama bin Laden. 

If you watched only Morning Joe every day, you might know that there's a few problems facing the nation, but you would think they're not as serious as whether Newt or Mitt will do well in today's poll. Plus, all our problems are steadily getting better, and Obama is benefitting from this. Obama killed Osama bin Laden -- need they say more?

Florida debate -- healthcare

As Rick Santorum attacked Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney regarding which one most supported individual mandates, Ron Paul listened. Then at the end when Blitzer asked Paul who he thought was wrong -- Paul said all of them. Paul said the conversation shows the convoluted mess made by government intervention in the market. All three conceded that because government has been involved in healthcare that government will have to solve the problem by staying involved and intervening even more. Gingrich admitted that Paul had a point and that healthcare should be re-thought with the private sector in mind. Paul's influence is becoming obvious, even if Paul is not winning. The three candidates arguing over government solutions to problems created by government was revealing, and Paul, as always, was a breathe of fresh air.

How I understand Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas

From Glenn Beck to Andrew McCarthy to Bill Kristol to the goobers at Redstate, they all, from my perspective, misrepresent Ron Paul's position on war and the mideast. I'm not a Ron Paul apologist. I don't personally know Ron Paul, nor do I think he's charismatic or necessarily the best representative for libertarian views, but he consistently upholds principles in which I believe. It's the principles I defend, not Ron Paul the man -- this is something else media personalities and pundits have a hard time understanding, too -- most of Paul's supporters, from listening to or reading their responses, are supporting libertarian principles, not blindly following a leader, which is antithetical to Paul's views anyway. Paul is about free-thinking and independence.

Getting back to Paul's foreign policy ideas, Beck has said that he agrees with the idea of non-interventionism, but insists that Paul is proposing something else. Beck, McCarthy, Kristol and many others who share their concern regarding Islamist terrorists who want to kill us claim Paul doesn't understand the danger present in countries like Iran. Paul has asked what's wrong with Iran getting a nuke. Paul has never said he wants Iran to get a nuke. Paul doesn't think that Iran getting a nuke is a good idea. If you asked Ron Paul if the world would be better off if Iran doesn't get a nuke, I'm pretty sure Paul would answer Yes. Because Paul is not standing on a table threatening to turn Iran into a parking lot if they develope a nuke, doesn't mean he's for Iran getting a nuke -- Paul is asking what we're going to do about it, and how is Iran having a nuke any different from N. Korea or Pakistan or Russia having nukes? Where does it all stop, and who's actually a threat to our national security.

First of all, Paul believes the sanctions we've imposed on Iran have only inflamed the situation. This sounds like weakness only way after the facts no one considers. Pauls' position is removed from the present entanglement of foreign affairs, and it asks the question -- Can we ever untangle ourselves? We have to go back in time to understand what Paul is talking about. I'm sure our military leaders and the President had good reasons for getting involved in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s, and before that I'm sure our leaders had reasons for supporting the Shah of Iran, and before that they had reasons for other interventions. What has happened is that our interventions have had negative consequences, and perhaps if we had had a non-interventionist policy all along, we would not be in the situation today that makes us think sanctions and embargoes on Iran are good ideas. Maybe the region would have been different and Osama bin Laden would not have risen in influence if not for Western interventions dating back to the beginning of America, and before that with Europe's interventions.

When someone such as Paul looks at the history of Western intervention in the mideast and brings up the subject of unintended consequences and foreign entanglements, hawks immediately accuse that someone of blaming America for 9/11. This shuts down all discussion and keeps us blind to the facts. Yes, the mideast has not been friendly, to say the least, to America, for the most part, and our first war with the mideast was caused by mideast attacks on our trading vessels, and years of bribery and killing and enslaving Americans. We were justified in defending our ships and citizens. But we continued to attempt to manipulate this region to our benefit through the years, especially when oil became important and everyone learned the mideast has plenty of it. There are many books documenting our interventions in the mideast -- two that I've read are: Power, Faith and Fantasy by Michael B. Oren, and A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin. Paul's point is that at some point we have to stop intervening.

The realists will say that it doesn't matter what brought us to this point, Iran is dangerous, and we must do whatever is necessary to prevent them getting a nuke. Rick Santorum says Iran is different from N. Korea or Pakistan because Iran is a theocracy and they don't value their lives, and they will bomb us even if it means they're destroyed by us bombing them with more powerful bombs -- it's a religious thing, he says. Beck and McCarthy and Kristol say basically the same thing. So we bomb Iran -- then what? We know the story -- it becomes another Iraq, another Afghanistan. Then what? What do we do with Syria? What do we do with Turkey if they resist our intervention in Iran? What if we don't destroy all the nuclear sites?  We can go on and on -- all based on an unproven claim that Iran is uniquely insane and suicidal. Anyone like Paul who asks that we begin thinking more creatively and less miltaristically in the mideast is called an appeaser, even a traitor by some. This hawkish, interventionist mindset has caused a lot of problems. When will we stop and reassess our foreign policy?

Paul is not America's enemy -- Paul is a voice of reason, and I don't know why so many intelligent men and women can't understand what he's saying. Paul served in the military and he loves America -- he would never do anything to threaten national security. If the generals came to Paul and proved to him that Iran will destroy America if not stopped, I'd rather have Paul digesting the information and making the decision than anyone else running for President.

The Un-Naturals running for President

I think we're witnessing the results of decades of clever political strategy, professional handlers, marketing, etc. that's reach the point of absurdity. Romney look uncomfortable as if he's struggling to put forth the right persona according to his advisors or his perception of how a President should present to the public, and Gingrich looks as if he's pretending to be natural, but you can tell he's struggling to keep his real self, if he knows what it is, hidden. Obama has become so phony he's lost in a world of spin, lies and patsies who, obviously, never tell him the truth. Santorum is acting the part of True Badass Conservative, and I don't know what he actually stands for.

Ron Paul is pretty much what you see -- I've never seen him struggle to put on a front. It's probably why Paul is running last. No, not really -- if the country could understand Paul's ideas regarding foreign policy, and realize that Paul would never let Iran get to the point of being an actual threat to our national security, I think he would be elected. It's probably because Paul is so natural that's he's doing as well as he has done.

I think going forward candidates should seriously re-think their campaign strategies. The candidates have become such a convoluted mixture of shuck and jive and what they think a president should act like, it's painful to watch at times. I can't watch and listen to Obama or Gingrich for over 30 seconds, and when Romney starts saying things I know he doesn't believe, the awkwardness of his delivery is uncomfortable to watch.

They need to fire their handlers and advisors and start over.