Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Ayn Rand hated altruism

A very clever video that shows what Republicans are all about:



Paul Ryan says Ayn Rand did a "fantastic job" of explaining the "morality" of capitalism. What morality is that schmuck talking about? Ayn Rand was a selfish individualist who hated altruism and socialism. She did not believe in love for our fellow human. And these Republicans who love Ayn Rand call themselves Christians! Either these Republicans do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy or they do not understand Christianity. Perhaps it is both.

73 comments :

Maury said...

I don't think her views are endorsed because of her Christianity, or lack of it. In hindsight, she was right about a lot of things. Social Security and Medicare are hungry animals, and the growth of those two programs threaten to bankrupt the country. At this point, we could eliminate defense spending entirely, and still have a deficit. 10 years from now, we could eliminate everything but SS and Medicare and we'd STILL run a deficit. The only choice we have at this point is massive tax increases or big cuts to those two programs.

Ayn Rand is a Republican icon because of her stance on capitalism and the welfare state. A quick glance at Europe the over last few years supports much of what she feared. Even with Greece, Spain, and Portugal sinking closer to bankruptcy, those populations riot for the right to continued handouts. Heck, were even seeing demonstrations here. They may not know exactly what it is that they want. But, they're convinced Obama can give it to them....LOL.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Greece is certainly an example of irresponsible govt and out of control socialism. But what about the rest of Europe? Germany, France, and the UK are doing pretty well.

Yes Medicare and Medicaid are becoming a problem. Is the solution to follow Ayn Rand's philosophy and abandon the poor & sick while keeping taxes low for the wealthy?

Maury said...

I don't want to abandon the neediest, but we certainly need to scale things back. I remember when most folks were too proud to get on food stamps. Now people tend to lie about their income to get free food from Uncle Sam. I think we need means testing for Soacial Security and Medicare. Should the Warren Buffets out there get it automatically? I don't see why they should. He could buy the best hospital in the country for pocket change, and treat himself for free.

I like the way the Swiss do health care. No Medicare or Medicaid, but the government subsidizes private health insurance for the poor. You keep that coverage even if you lose your job. We can do things better, and smarter. A cultural attitude of government gimmes ain't good for anyone.

CMAR II said...

Google Pathological Altruism.
Still, just because she had other ideas that you and I don't agree with doesn't mean she couldn't have done a good job at detailing the morality of capitalism.

German unemployment from the CSMonitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2011/0106/How-Germany-defeated-unemployment
"In 2003-05, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder implemented a free market reform agenda called "Agenda 2010" which included tax cuts, unemployment benefits cuts and less strict labor regulations."

I think the focus on deregulation was probably more beneficial than the other two.

France and the UK are peculiar because they don't track unemployment as the US does. Also, I think we need a ratio that tracks Unemployment (those looking for work) with Entitlements (those not looking for work who are living off the public dime).

madtom said...

"believe in love for our fellow human"

Why are handouts a sing of love?

Iraqi Mojo said...

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7

madtom said...

"The righteous care about justice for the poor,"

How are handouts justice? What about a job and a shot.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The President proposed a jobs bill. Republicans shot it down. More jobs in America might help Obama, and that's the last thing Republicans want.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Conservative Republicans are like conservative Muslims. They don't give a crap about jobs. They want to ban abortion!

K said...

Ayn Rand was brilliant, unlike the idiots you show supporting her. You have to admit that, whether you agree with her or not.

I recommend instead of 10 second hand picked clips, Mojo, you watch the interview these came from which is available on Netflix.

Collectivization under the guise of altruism has killed more people than all wars in human history combined. How can you not understand why someone who lived through that might find it immoral, or even evil?

Iraqi Mojo said...

She may have been brilliant, and I understand why she hated communism, but for Republicans to say that her philosophy explains the "morality" of capitalism is quite funny.

I'll check out the movie on Netflix, K. Thanks for suggesting it.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Republican philosophy can be summed up like this: "Silly poor people, help is for banks!"

K said...

Poor people are small enough to fail ;(

madtom said...

Job's bill, you must be kidding. You must mean the bill to pad the Union bigwigs and the Obama's donor pool. What a joke. Don't you know that government "jobs" are wealth destroyers, not wealth creating jobs like in the public sector? We don't need no more government spending. You really believe any "jobs bill" would benefit any poor people?

Bridge for sale

madtom said...

""Silly poor people, help is for banks!""

You must mean like the Democrat bill that makes the bank bailouts permanent, right?

Iraqi Mojo said...

Timothy Geithner's bailout?

Iraqi Mojo said...

It is rather embarrassing for liberals that Obama appointed Timothy Geithner

' "I believe Tim Geithner only represents part of Wall Street - Goldman Sachs," he says, suggesting Goldman was the "primary beneficiary of the AIG bailout" and notes Goldman alum Stephen Friedman serves on the board of the NY Fed. (Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin, with whom Geithner had frequent meetings in the past year, are also Goldman alum.)

Whalen further questions the inconsistency of the Fed's decision to rescue Bear Stearns - in the end, their debt and shareholders got something - while letting Lehman Brothers "go to hell." '

Iraqi Mojo said...

But let's not blame everything on the banks. The banks paid the money back to the govt, after all. And they're helping to re-invigorate the economy! LOL

Seriously though, the costs of TARP, Fannie & Freddie account for a fraction of the budget deficit. The biggest chunk of the deficit is the result of the Bush tax cuts.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Did the Bush tax cuts create jobs?

The mendacity of those Republican leaders is quite astounding, no?

madtom said...

The Tax cuts were a stimulus program. Are you claiming they did not work? If so what makes the Obama program different? Or will O's program not work either?

Or maybe the economy knows the difference between one stimulus than the other?

madtom said...

I think that we can say with some certainty that the Bush stimulus will in the end work better than the Obama stimulus ever could because of efficiency. Just keeping some of your own money in your pocket is more efficient than sending off to the federal government and then having the government send it back in the form of spending. Less efficient

madtom said...

"The biggest chunk of the deficit is the result of the Bush tax cuts."

That is of course absolute nonsense. The government has doubled in size since the time of the cuts. The biggest chunk is spending, and more spending......with no end in sight.

Iraqi Mojo said...

It's important to note that chart shows federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

"By the end of the decade, CBPP projects that, on the current trajectory, the Bush tax cuts, exacerbated by the economic downturn, combined with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for the significant majority of public debt as a share of GDP.

Without those factors, and without the need for stimulus measures under President Obama, CBPP projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio would have dropped under both Presidents Bush and Obama."

Yes the govt is spending more on the rich! Are they lying, madtom?

Iraqi Mojo said...

This Wikipedia article shows federal debt by US Presidential terms.

"This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt[8] as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II.[9] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.

These figures do not include unfunded obligations. The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The 2009 present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2084. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. Adding this to the national debt and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[10] However, these amounts are excluded from the national debt computation."

Very interesting!

Iraqi Mojo said...

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

--Albert Einstein

Iraqi Mojo said...

I should clarify that in the comment I posted at 10/14/11 9:53 PM I linked to a Crooks & Liars article that includes a chart showing the federal deficit in dollars.

In the comment at 8:22 today I linked to a TPM article that includes a chart showing the debt as a percentage of GDP.

If you scroll down the C&L article you'll see a chart that shows 35% of the deficit is eaten up by defense spending and Homeland Security. WOW. I bet most Republicans don't want to touch that, huh?

Iraqi Mojo said...

Also I should say that I don't know if the Bush tax cuts created jobs. They may have. It just wasn't enough to increase revenue to balance the budget.

The solution is to reduce spending and increase taxes by a small amount for the middle class and a larger amount for people with incomes over $250k/year. We must eliminate waste, including ending subsidies for oil companies.

madtom said...

"The solution"

You need to read more, your solution doesn't equal 3% of the problem!

madtom said...

"a chart that shows 35% of the deficit is eaten up by defense spending and Homeland Security."

That's another lie in the form of a fact, of course all the deficit spending is in defense, because the government refuses to cut one penney, or offset any spending program even during three wars and countless disasters. They just keep borrowing, so now we can blame tax cuts and rainy days for our problems.

I am sure we all do the same at home, if your house is on fire, we just spend more...

What would have happened to the deficit if they would have cut spending by the amount of the tax cuts?

Iraqi Mojo said...

If they cut spending by the amount of the tax cuts, they would cut the deficit by almost half! But they would have to choose from discretionary spending, which includes Defense & Homeland Security. If you want to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, you have to change the law first. Consider that "fixed" spending. I can see the Republicans changing the law before cutting Defense and Homeland Security.

If you cut that much spending in one year, it will be a shock to the economy. It would result in huge job losses in just one year. If you do that without ending the Bush tax cuts, those Americans who lose their jobs will be struggling while rich Americans will continue to get richer. The discontent will no doubt deepen, and resentment of the rich (and the govt) will grow.

I can see Republicans saying "hey we gotta sacrifice" while they slash spending AND taxes for the wealthy!

Iraqi Mojo said...

"That's another lie in the form of a fact" -madtom

Don't you hate it when people lie by telling the truth? lol

madtom said...

"If you cut that much spending in one year"

But the deficit from the tax cuts are not counted from one year, but over a ten year period, plenty of time to ease in the spending cut. But yet governments did the opposite, they grew spending over that same time.

You keep going on about the poor, the poor, poor would suffer, but it's fact that it's the rich getting richer off of government spending. Where does the government buy all these services, and good? From some poor people?
No they buy those services and good from some of the biggest most global corporation. So it's the rich getting richer off the government and it's the rich that would suffer most from any spending cut. If that were not the car K Street would be chuck full of budget cutting lobbyist...Think about it, your advocating for the very people you think your protesting.

Iraqi Mojo said...

It wasn't just increased spending that contributed to the deficit. Tax revenue dropped at the same time.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"it's the rich that would suffer most from any spending cut."

I think it depends on which spending is cut. A cut in spending on education will not cause the rich to suffer, for example.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Check out this table of federal revenue & spending by year.

madtom said...

"you have to change the law first."

Well republican or somebody better do something. You posted the numbers yourself, from a source you believe, you really think anyone is going to lend us 65 trillion dollars? The world does not have 65 trillion to lend, nor will the rest of the world produce that amount any time soon. So I suggest someone do something before it's too late and then there will be no help for no one at all.

Wayne said...

Social Security funds were held from my pay every week for more than 40 years at the same time my employer paid the same amount each week into my social security account. Now for the past few years they have held out $98 each month for medicare whether we used any medical service or not. What did our government do with our money? I think they have wasted it for trips to Africa, ETC.

Iraqi Mojo said...

That's 65 trillion dollars required to fund projected "fixed" spending through the year 2084. Yes we have to do something about it. I believe there is a solution. Maury talked about doing what the Swiss do. I'm in favor of that. I like what the UK does too, but American insurance companies and private hospitals are part of the establishment, and it would be difficult to change. The best we can hope for in the short term is subsidizing insurance for poor folks and eliminating waste.

If we want to be like Switzerland, we must eliminate waste and at the same time raise GDP significantly.

madtom said...

Did you see the line for 2011...25.3

Mind boggling

madtom said...

@Wayne

It's not the SS retirement fund that's going belly up, it's the SS disability program that's bust, and will be going out of business as soon as 2017...

madtom said...

"we must eliminate waste"

But it's the subsidy that creates the waste and fuels the rise in prices. If you sell widgets and you have them on your shelf for sale at $3.50 and the government decides to help the poor and subsidize the widgets and decided to give out coupons to the poor worth $4.00 a widget so that it pays you your 3.50 and .50 for the transaction cost, it just raised the price of all the widgets on your shelf and built an artificial floor for the price of the very same widget. Six month later you find out that the free widget program for the poor could put your whole store out of business. When you try to redeem the coupons your have collected inspectors from the federal free widget program show up at your store, and tell you that the widgets are displayed too far in the back of the store, that they are too height up on the shelf that you have improper lighting on the widgets, that you need to install free widget parking in front, and other special access, and that they are only going to fine you $1000.00 a day till you bring your store in compliance with the widget program.

You'll soon find out that the .50 extra per widget is not enough and lobby congress for more money to provide free widgets for the poor.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Yeah the numbers don't look good for 2011. Tax revenue must increase and spending must decrease.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Yes we must stop spending so much on widgets for the poor. I agree madtom! lol

madtom said...

"A cut in spending on education"

You know a lot of poor professors, do you?

Have you ever notices how the more the government spends on higher education the more it cost for higher education. Talk about the rich getting richer, the top schools have $$billions$$ in endowment funds earning in the range of 20% a year. You don't think they are padding those endowment with funds from the DoE do you?

madtom said...

List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment
Wikipedia

To think that the students are on the streets right now protesting capitalism???

madtom said...

Look carefully at the revenue side of the table, revenues fell in 2008 not in 2001, the revenues fell because of the recession in 2008 not the tax cuts in 2001...and they have averaged over the years at different tax rate at about 18% more or less...quick math in my head....conclusions is that the amount of revenue is not connected to rate but to economic activity....we need more jobs not higher taxes not bigger government not new jobs bill....Look at your own table.

Muhannad said...

Actually revenues did fall from 2000 to 2001, and spending increased. After revenues fell from 2001 to 2002 and spending increased again, it should have been clear to Bush & team there would be a deficit. That's when he should have been a responsible President (like his father was) and raise taxes, or at least not give tax cuts to the wealthy. That was a bad move.

Revenues started rising again in 2004, but spending continued to increase and deficit spending continued. I don't remember Republicans complaining about the budget deficit back then.

Yes we need new jobs, but Republicans are not interested in passing any jobs bill. The govt cannot magically create jobs. But they do have the power to raise taxes.

Obama should have raised taxes on the rich as soon as he became President. He had a majority in both houses. Obama missed an opportunity to reduce the deficit immediately. That was a mistake.

madtom said...

"But they do have the power to raise taxes."

They also have the power to cut spending.

ArtVanDeLay said...

The Republican party consists of four pillars=social conservatives,fiscal conservatives,national security hawks and libertarians.
Ayn Rand appeals to fiscal conservatives and liberatarians only.
Social conservatives which drive a good deal of the Republican party agenda are deeply uncomfortable with her for eg National Review magazine takes a dim view of her.
I personally never much cared for her, her self righteousness and authoritarian nature sometimes she reminds me of Layla Anwar(your best friend :) )!

Having said all that, I agree that EXCESSIVE government is the problem, the social security and welfare state is unsustainable.Agreed the way she expresses this can be rather insensitive but please remember that socialism and statism was the rage with intellectual atleast from the 1930s on.And the pro statists could be especially vile like George Bernard Shaw for example who believe that "inferior" non productive people should be marched off to gulags.
Back then such ideas were considered "respectable" among the intelligensia!
Ayn Rand as the daughter of Russian Jewish bourgeois imbibed a lot of the authoritarian of Bolshevism of her youth but channeled toward opposite ideology.

ArtVanDeLay said...

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7

Thank you for quoting these.These only prove Republican talking points.
The best justice for poor is NOT giving them handouts-see the inner cities to notice how the welfare state have devastated the black community in U.S and whites in Britain.
Give a man a fish ,feed him for day-teach a man to fish,feed him for life.
What Confucius said and Republicans practice is not incompatible with those quotes!
And BTW conservatives donate far more to charity than liberals!So there!
If you dont see the difference between voluntary charitable donations by individuals and involuntary taxation of an entire group via government for creating a welfare state,then thats really not my problem!

Iraqi Mojo said...

It is everybody's problem, every American's problem.

madtom said...

You know I was looking around and I found out that there is maybe 44 trillion total net worth in the entire world....And somehow we are going to spend that and more.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith, a Founding Father of America

Was Adam Smith in favor of hand-outs? Was he a Marxist?

Are the tea party "patriots" still dressing up as Tom Pain and Adam Smith?

Iraqi Mojo said...

Layla Anwar is my best friend? You are joking, no doubt, ArtVanDelay. Hahaha!

Iraqi Mojo said...

Here is what Thomas Paine had to say about taxes:

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Socialist! :)

madtom said...

"and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation"

And there is the question. How much? 30%, 40%, 50%,...90%? How much is too much, how much is just right?

Iraqi Mojo said...

I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want corporations and the richest 2% to pay higher taxes.

If I want to see GE & Exxon pay higher tax rates than I do, am I asking for a handout?

"Starting in 1978, the Supreme Court opened the spigot to corporate spending in politics. Since then, the average American has seen their wages stagnate and their share of taxes rise significantly, while corporations have seen their tax burden shrink and the top 1% has literally tripled their income. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. And it's going straight to the top."

ArtVanDeLay said...

And how exactly do you contribute to the economy compared to Enron?How many jobs did YOU create?
Why should the more productive be penalised for success?
Adam Smith wasnt talking the industrialsts and entrepreneurs but the aristocrats and nobility and others with inherited wealth,often through government largesse(as was the case at the time)

BTW bad example with GE,perfect case of crony capitalism via your beloved Obama.They pay no taxes at all!

Iraqi Mojo said...

Yes Obama should have raised taxes and eliminated tax loopholes for large corporations as soon as he took office. That was a foolish mistake and quite embarrassing for progressives. Some people say the Democrats are bought by corporations just like Republicans are. Maybe it's true.

From a 2010 CNN article: 'GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.'

Iraqi Mojo said...

Top 10 corporate quaterly earnings of all time:

1. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2008, 2Q $11.68 billion

2. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2007, 4Q $11.66 billion

3. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2008, 1Q $10.89 billion

4. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2005, 4Q $10.71 billion

5. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2006, 3Q $10.49 billion

6. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2006, 2Q $10.36 billion

7. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2007, 2Q $10.26 billion

8. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2006, 4Q $10.25 billion

9. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2005, 3Q $9.92 billion

10. Exxon Mobil Corp: 2007, 3Q $9.41 billion

ArtVanDeLay said...

Layla Anwar is my best friend? You are joking, no doubt, ArtVanDelay. Hahaha!

Well yeah ,hence the smiley!I disagree with your views but atleast you are civil.

As you are aware,Layla Anwar is a loathsome,tyrannical individual who viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with her twisted worldview(that just not includes us but most of the civilized world!).

I find traces in Ayn Rand in her.

ArtVanDeLay said...

oops ,I mean Exxon,not Enron :p

re Exxons earnings.I dont see the big deal-Exxon deals in energy-a commodity in very high demand even in a down economy.
Re CEO salaries in non bailed out companies-I dont really care.if the tax payer is not picking up their tab I dont see why I should have any say in it.

As Thomas Sowell when asked regarding CEOs salary -"I never paid a CEO, so what they recieve does not concern me
"

BTW why is it that no one goes after the salaries of athletes,rock stars and movie stars. The case could be made that they are overpaid as well.
Atleast CEOs of many companies(yes even GE) deliver tangible and useful goods such as computers,refridgerators,cars and so on which is more than I can say for the latest edgy though box office bomb of a Cold war thriller excusing Communism starring George Clooney , a coke sniffing NBA star with 10 illegitimate children or the latest "Kill the Bitch" rap label.

madtom said...

"If I want to see GE & Exxon pay higher tax rates than I do, am I asking for a handout?"

It all depends on what you want their money for.

GE

Yeah keep raising taxes on the rich and corporation and watch more and more of them move their profits, and jobs, offshore.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Senate Republicans blocked a popular piece of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan -- one to raise taxes on millionaires to create or protect 400,000 jobs for teachers and firefighters.

The vote was 50-50 on Thursday evening, 10 short of the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican procedural roadblock.

The action came shortly before Democrats were expected to block a Republican bid to stimulate the economy by repealing a pending 3 percent business withholding tax."

Iraqi Mojo said...

Evidently Republicans represent rich people.

madtom, are you rich? Is your annual income over 250k/year?

Iraqi Mojo said...

Republicans do not represent teachers or firefighters. and Republicans like to call themselves "conservative". It is ironic, like so many things in life.

Muhannad said...

'The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.'

madtom said...

"protect 400,000 jobs for teachers and firefighters."

And here I thought those people were paid buy local taxes, when were they all federalized?

madtom said...

"income over 250k/year"

That's like play money...sure...

But all my customers....I don't think I ever sold anything to any poor people, lots of hard working people, but poor, no.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The money would go to states and local governments:

"Nine days after President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package was blocked in the U.S. Senate, one of the plan’s key components — which would provide $35 billion to states and local governments to hire teachers and first responders — suffered the same fate late Thursday."

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Republicans also opposed imposing a 0.5 percent surtax on million-dollar incomes to pay for the aid, as Democrats proposed."

madtom, are you against an extra 0.5% tax on people who make more than a million dollars a year? to pay for teachers and firefighters?

madtom said...

But we just had a trillion dollar stimulus package for just that. Did it work last time, how many more .5% before they are finished. And I guess not one penny for any deficit reduction, so next year it will just add more to the debt. more, more, more. when is it going to be enough.

You know what might help create real jobs. How about a budget, why has O not passed one budget during his entire term? Where is the budget. That is the only thing I want to see from congress a budget.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The trillion dollar stimulus package was for teachers and firefighters?

Obama's admin seems to believe that giving the money directly to local govts to spend on teachers and firefighters will stimulate the economy better rather than continuing tax cuts.

What was the top tax rate during Reagan's admin?