Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Steele: Small businesses don't need lines of credit [UPDATED]

The Democratic National Committee is jumping on a remark Michael Steel just made on Fox News, in which he seemed to suggest that small businesses don't need lines of credit.

Steele, in the course of ripping into the small business bill Obama and Dems are poised to move next week, said:

"What we have here right now is more of the same. You have the president proposing a small business bill which is or in which, basically, you're going to put money into financial institutions -- financial institutions on the assumption that small businesses are going to take out credit lines. They don't need that."

In fairness to Steele, it's not entirely clear what he meant here. But if he did mean that small businesses don't need credit lines, that seems at odds with what he told CNBC back in June, Dems point out, when he touted a GOP idea to make capital available to small business:

"I think there's been a lot put on the table that this administration has ignored. We've talked about freeing up the capital markets and the credit markets to allow small business to access that capital and credit so they can invest."

A spokesman for Steele, Doug Heye, brushed off the Dem attack, suggesting that Steele meant to say that fixing the economy was far more important to small business than extending credit is.

"No one can dispute that the best way to help small business is to fix the economy," Heye said. "The Democrats message this week has been attack John Boehner, berate journalists who suggest that OFA is a paper tiger and to hand Jon Stewart a key chain. That won't help Democrats pick up one seat this November."

For those of you who don't pay attention to every tit for tat between the party committees, that's a reference to the DNC's criticism yesterday of a Time magazine piece on Organizing for America.

The reason Steele's latest verbal mishap is interesting is that his earlier claim -- touting the GOP's push to make more capital available to small businesses -- came before Obama and Dems pushed a bill to do just that.

Video of Steele soon.

UPDATE, 2:44 p.m.: Steele's spokesman Heye says that Steele was referring to small businesses not needing the bill overall, and wasn't focused specifically on the lines of credit. And Heye points to a recent National Federation of Independent Business statement which said: "The primary problem facing small business owners right now in terms of job creation is not access to credit, it's a lack of sales, customers and confidence."

By Greg Sargent  |  September 10, 2010; 2:23 PM ET
Categories:  economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Obama hint he's going to appoint Elizabeth Warren?
Next: Obama again speaks up for `Ground Zero mosque'

Comments

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/07/100196_a100249/cartoons-for-the-week-of-5-september.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

What a misleading headline. It is clear to anyone with knowledge about lending right now: "They [financial institutions" don't need that [even more money]." Our banks right now are sitting on HUGE cash reserves because of the uncertainty in the economy. Giving them more cash is not going to make them issue lines of credit to small businesses.

Typical for a journ-O-lister.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So, they are sitting on "huge reserves" now, after Bush TARPed them out of the ditch, and gave them huge tax cuts.

Good to know that. Of course the small business bill that President Obama proposed, has nothing to do with those Wall St Casino Banks, being Run by Robber Barons.

The bill is designed to help smaller local lending institutions obtain enough money to lend out to local small businesses.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Shorter GOP: The way to fix [aspect of the economy] is by fixing the economy!

It's a good thing circular logic works, and we know this because circular logic works!

@Greg

Did you see Sharron Angle backed out of a debate with Sen. Reid?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 10, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"In fairness" to Sargent, this thread is SO stupid that even Ezra Klein wouldn't have posted it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

actually, Jake, the RNC is saying that he was referring to the bill overall -- so it's not clear at all that he was saying you imagine. Update coming in a second.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 10, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

So; Sharron Obtuse Angle is afraid to debate Harry Reid, but she is going to be tough enough, if send to Washington, to apply "2nd amendment remedies" to a lot of other US Senators. That is a good one.

And A Coward Shall Save Us.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It's clear to me (and, again, anyone with knowledge about lending right now). I never claimed that it was clear to you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

It's NEVER entirely clear what Michael Steele means.

Good catch, Greg, on yet another fine example of the famous Steele doublespeak.

That's the problem with Republicans trying to pretend that they actually want to help small business. They don't care about small business. They only throw that around to try to deceive the voters about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. It's all a ruse.

Posted by: elscott | September 10, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

So, now you are saying that the National Federation of Independent Businesses is lying too?!

Look, Greg, you yourself admitted that "Steel [SIC] seemed to suggest" that small businesses do not need lines of credit, but "it's not entirely clear what he meant here."

That's not how your headline came out ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Nice "UPDATE". It doesn't change my reading of Chairman Steele's comment. My point about your MISLEADING HEADLINE still stands (usually, you at least cover yourself by including a "question mark" or some other equivocation). I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

How many more countries do we have to see such reports coming out of, before we face the truth? The entire global organization, from top to bottom, has been doing this for centuries.

Yet they want to control the reproductive decisions of women!


"2 hrs 37 mins ago

BRUSSELS – Hundreds of sex abuse victims have come forward in Belgium with harrowing accounts of molestation by Catholic clergy that reportedly led to at least 13 suicides and affected children as young as two, a special commission said Friday.

Professor Peter Adriaenssens, chairman of the commission, said the abuse in Belgium may have been even more rampant than the 200-page report suggests.

"Reality is worse than what we present here today because not everyone shares such things automatically in a first contact with the commission," he told reporters.

Adriaenssens, a child psychiatrist who has worked with trauma victims for 23 years, said nothing had prepared him for the stories of abuse that blighted the lives of victims."

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I thought that this thread was about Steele and the next bail-out bill?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

If the people in the Middle East are trying to make the point that people shouldn't burn things - then what are THEY doing burning American flags ???

And where is the liberal press - constantly saying that someone in America is doing something wrong - and not applying things equally???

The mosque TRADE-OFF is fair - and it is one that that Imam in New York should take seriously.


Why the proposition of that trade-off angers liberals - like the visible on-air anger of Chris Matthews and Mika Brezenski - is beyond any reasonable person.

Is the liberal media THAT invested in having an issue which they can call Americans bigots (or islamaphobes) - that a COMPROMISE incites on-air anger ?

Obama looks horribly weak on this issue - and the Pastor Jones in Florida really looked good when it appeared for a moment that he could accomplish what Obama could not.

Obama looks weak - and unable to grasp COMPROMISE.


Obama looks like he is unable to bring the parties together - instead Obama has become a DIVISIVE force.

And the liberals are visibly angry about it.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Joke,

While you're screaming and moaning and whining, gnashing teeth and rending your garments... have you decided whether or not to pursue *ahem* second amendment remedies against President Obama, you know, the "A" word?

You said you were considering it...

Have you decided?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainForest
Is now singing the praises of This Jones Nut Job that General Petraeus, and Defense Secretary Gates said was putting the lives our Troops at greater risk.
Why does SaveTheRainForest hate our Troops?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess Steele disagrees with Voinovich:

"The package of tax breaks and other incentives includes a new loan fund that would encourage community banks to provide up to $30 billion to small businesses, improving access to credit - a problem hurting businesses owners in Ohio, Voinovich said. He cited the case of a constituent who was turned down for a loan by 42 banks. "I happen to believe these small-business people can't get money to save their souls," he said."

That last bit bears repeating so idiots like Joke2 can understand it through repetition:

"I happen to believe these small-business people can't get money to save their souls," he said.

"I happen to believe these small-business people can't get money to save their souls," he said.

"I happen to believe these small-business people can't get money to save their souls," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903599.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"It's clear to me (and, again, anyone with knowledge about lending right now)."

Let's see....according to his spokesperson, what Steele was trying to say wasn't even remotely close to what was so "clear" to you.

So, is this an admission on your part that Steele and his spokesperson don't have any "knowledge about lending right now"? or are you hypothesizing that Steele and his spokesperson are part of the evil Journ-o-list cabal?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 10, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

If you people think we can afford to give away another $42 BILLION -- $30 billion of that as another freebie lending fund -- fine. But why don't the Dems just cut out the middle man (like they did with student loans) and start making loans directly to people who promise to vote for them in November?

Obviously, I think it's time to stop this run-away borrowing train! Obama has already increased the federal debt more than Presidents Washington through Reagan combined (that includes the CIVIL and TWO WORLD WARS!!!).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

Quarterback1 asked in an earlier thread: "Ethan, are all these liberals claiming we live under plutocracy (apparently evolving from Bush fascism) . . . what was it you said . . . "certifiably insane," or do they just "hate democracy"?"

Just wanted to forward it in this current thread for an answer.

Thanks in advance.


Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 10, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

schroderingscat:

Neither.

Ethan2010:

You are almost as bad as Greg. I said that I was NOT considering assassination.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

@benen:

"""[Steele] added, "Basically, you're going to put money into financial institutions on the assumption that small businesses are going to take out credit lines. They don't need that."

They don't? Then why did Steele say he wanted to expand credit to small businesses so they can invest? For that matter, why are there so many small businesses that "put hiring, supply buying and real estate expansion on hold" while they wait for this pending legislation to pass?

Steele added that what businesses really need is "consumers to go out into the marketplace to buy the goods and services that they provide so they can begin to hire and expand services." That sounds like a fine idea -- Americans become consumers when they have jobs. Now, if only Steele's party would stop blocking jobs bills, and encouraging hundreds of thousands of layoffs at the state and local level, we could take his rhetoric seriously."""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025613.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"I said that I was NOT considering assassination."

You said you weren't... yet.

Don't you remember?

Are you THAT forgetful?

Or are you lying now like you do repeatedly on any and every issue?

Either way.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

You are almost as bad as Greg. I said that I was NOT considering assassination.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:21 PM

.....................

That is a lie. You said that you were not considering it "yet". That means that you were open to considering it, but not just "yet".

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"what was it you said . . . "certifiably insane," or do they just "hate democracy"?""

I said that people who think that representative democracy is tyranny -- like Joke2 -- are either certifiably insane or hate the American form of democracy.

Don't you agree, Troll?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Not shocking that Steve Benen is still on the journ-O-list (Kevin Drum was before him too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Michael Steele meant this:


The Feds have already given the big banks aid and lower rates - with the idea that then small businesses would be extended credit.


However, things have NOT worked that way, the banks take the aid, help themselves, cut OFF small business, but back credit card credit lines - and then the banks go back to GAMBLING ON WALL STREET.

Steele MEANT that no one in the country needed ANOTHER ROUND OF THAT.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

All, check out Obama's quotes today about Cordoba House:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/obama_reaffirms_support_for_gr.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 10, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2. When will we know when "yet" becomes now, for you. Will we have to wait and learn about it, when they identify you on TV?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm the one LYING?! LOL

To you libs 1) "I am considering assassination" is the exact same thing as 2) "I am not considering assassination, yet."

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Joke, no comment on the substance of his post? Just an attack?

If you disagree, then why don't you make a substantive comment?

Do you disagree with Benen? If so, why?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Gentlemen:

Isn't there a better way to settle these disputes on the blog ???


May I suggest CAGE MATCH ???


Winner gets a keyboard and can continue to post.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I also never said that "representative democracy is tyranny" (Adolph Hitler WAS duly elected though ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Gentlemen:

Isn't there a better way to settle these disputes on the blog ???


May I suggest CAGE MATCH ???


Winner gets a keyboard and can continue to post.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

So have you decided to consider assassination as a means of settling political disagreement?

What's wrong with you?

Why won't you answer?

Btw, do you agree that representative democracy is NOT tyranny?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

When Obama becomes as bad as Hitler.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

CalD:

Don't worry, I'm not considering assassination (yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 26, 2010 2:35 PM |

........................

You can lie about what you said, but you can not hide what you said!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 -

Ethan, thanks for the link to the cartoons. I loved the one of the pastor and his book of press clippings :)

As for Michael Steele, I agree with elscott, it's never entirely clear what he means. I'm not sure, though, that going through the process of getting him or a spokesperson to clarify it, pointing out the hypocrisy, etc., will have much effect on the voting public.

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 10, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

When Obama becomes as bad as Hitler.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:40 PM |

...............

So now you admit that you are considering killing our President, and you are the nut job that gets to decide when that time has come. I think that you are now in big big trouble.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

For ther record, the following was posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:07 PM:

"... have you decided whether or not to pursue *ahem* second amendment remedies against President Obama, you know, the 'A' word?

You said you were considering it..."

While I don't expect a retraction, I think I've sufficiently proven that I never said that I was considering it. So, the answer to this question is "no (assuming he is even legally President".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

You just told me that you are considering it, and you will determine when you will do it.

Here; read what you just wrote.
.....................
Liam-still:

When Obama becomes as bad as Hitler.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:40 PM |

...............

So now you admit that you are considering killing our President, and you are the nut job that gets to decide when that time has come. I think that you are now in big big trouble.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

What part of "I'm NOT considering assassination (yet)" are you having trouble understanding?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

It was QB1's question. Would someone who thought our representative republic was instead a plutocracy be either insane or not understand democracy?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Joke2,

Have you considered whether or not to consider assassinating the President of the United States?

You said that you're not considering it YET.

So, have you considered whether or not to consider it?

Oh and why wouldn't he legally be the President?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

1) "I'm not considering assassination (yet)" is the same as 2) "I'm not considering assassination."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

I don't care whose question it was, I asked YOU for YOUR response.

"Would someone who thought our representative republic was instead a plutocracy be either insane or not understand democracy?"

No.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama's not legally President if he was born in Kenya. As for ever "consider[ing] whether or not to consider" that seems a bit too hypothetical for even me. If Obama becomes as bad as Hitler, then I will consider it (hopefully that answers your question : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

When Obama becomes as bad as Hitler.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:40 PM |

..............

What part of your own answer, do you not understand. In it clearly state that you have already decided when you will carry out the attack, and you are the one who will decide when you feel like you should do it.

You admit that you have a plan to carry out the attack, when the time is right for you to do so.

You are not going to get away with making such a threat.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not considering assassination (yet)"

Means that you're not considering it NOW, but you might consider it later.

"I'm not considering assassination."

Means that you're not considering it, without equivocation.

The two are clearly not the same.

So, I ask you AGAIN.

Have you considered whether or not to assassinate the President of the United States?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

jake's time at the Fix was peppered with his threats to kill someone which he then claimed he didn't say. Everyone there got sick of his dancing around. He's just doing this to amuse himself and drive everyone else crazy. If you don't believe it, go to Fix Archives and search for Jake's moniker.

He's a gold plated nutcase. Has he told you about his legal career and his yacht?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 10, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! You people are asking WHEN will I consider it ("when Obama becomes as bad as Hitler" which was the context I brought it up on the original thread). Are you arguing that Obama IS currently as bad as Hitler? I am not arguing that (yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...you're wasting your time on jake...he can feel free to assassinate Obama when HE determines Obama is emulating Hitler because Jake doesn't consider Obama HIS President.

In other word's in Jakes's mind..if someone HE doesn't like gets elected he doesn't have to accept him as President. Only the people who Jake votes for are genuine Presidents of the United States.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's not legally President if he was born in Kenya."

That is true.

But he was born in Hawaii, so he IS legally the President.

Don't you agree?

"As for ever "consider[ing] whether or not to consider" that seems a bit too hypothetical for even me. If Obama becomes as bad as Hitler"

What specifically does that mean "as bad as Hitler"?

You keep using the quotation extracted from Thomas Jefferson's letter about the Tree of Liberty and the blood of tyrants...

...why would you use that quotation if Obama is not a tyrant?

Don't you think he is a tyrant?

Because if he wasn't a tyrant then you wouldn't use that quotation, right?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Lol,

Troll got Ethan to answer my question, and of course it turns out Ethan as a slight problem with consistency.

Who knew? It turns out that the our representative republic, governed by "duly elected" officials under our Constitution is a plutocracy, even though it cannot, "by definition," be a tyranny.

Where else you learn this kind of stuff but Plum Line?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010: "I said that people who think that representative democracy is tyranny -- like Joke2 -- are either certifiably insane or hate the American form of democracy.

Don't you agree, Troll?"

I do not think that JakeD2 equates representative democracy with tyranny. He may think that we have elected a President who had become, or may become a tyrant. As I said yesterday, at some point all governments end, it's just the way of the world, and when they end it often is replace with tyranny. So, a representative republic may at some point elect someone who then become a tyrant.

Now, if I understand your answer, a representative republic can be a plutocracy. If that is correct, is a plutocracy tyrannical? If not, why not?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 10, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The Birthers, like JakeD2DumbToBeHuman, believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, and his mother decided, on the day he was born, that he would become President of The USA, so she put a notice of his birth in the Papers in Hawaii, on the date of his birth.

Of course one nominee was not born a US citizen, and that person was John McCain. He was born in the Panama Canal zone, at a time when such births were not considered to be US Citizens. It is true. Look it up.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

No. "I'm not considering assassination (without equivocation)" certainly reserves the right to consider it in the future.

rukidding7:

I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, but he was born in Arkansas, so he was legally President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"It turns out that the our representative republic, governed by "duly elected" officials under our Constitution is a plutocracy"

Actually, that's not even remotely what I said.

Go back and read what I said.

More to the point, we COULD be a plutocracy -- because of the power and influence of money in our political system -- but we cannot be a tyranny without major changes to our political system.

Just a quick glance at the definition of these two words shows that pretty clearly.

plu·toc·ra·cy

1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

tyr·an·ny

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

Clearly we can be a plutocracy given the possibility of financial influence over policy and politics. We see that every day and on every issue with lobbyists and financial campaign contributions.

But for America to be a tyranny, would necessitate there being a tyrant in charge of the government. That is something specifically disallowed by our form of representative democracy as designed in the Constitution.

Again, this much is obvious.

But hey, QB is an anti-intellectual -- primarily because he is genuinely pretty stupid.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

More questions for liberals to ponder.

Why is there a better argument that the GOP is "holding the middle class hostage" to "tax cuts for the rich" than there is an argument that Obama is "holding the middle class hostage" to tax increases on "the rich" (i.e., on employers)?

Do middle class tax cuts pay for themselves? If so, why only middle class cuts?

Do the Obama R&D tax cuts (borrowed from Rs) pay for themselves?

If lower tax rates always reduce revenue, why is revenue today so much greater even in adjusted dollars than it was in 1980 (or any prior year)?

Don't hurt yourselves.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

I don't think that Obama is a tyrant and/or as bad as Hitler. That means that I reserve my right to re-consider ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"I do not think that JakeD2 equates representative democracy with tyranny."

Sure he does. That is the implication that he makes every time he uses the quotation lifted from a Thomas Jefferson letter.

By using that quotation he is implying that we are currently in a tyranny and that we should consider assassination as a way to settle political disagreement in the USA.

"Now, if I understand your answer, a representative republic can be a plutocracy. If that is correct, is a plutocracy tyrannical? If not, why not?"

A plutocracy can be tyrannical. That is because it could be cruel, harsh and oppressive; characteristics of what society might be like under a tyrant.

However, a plutocracy CANNOT be a proper tyranny because a plutocracy is rule or influence by a whole economic class of people and not rule by a singular despotic ruler, tyrant, nor absolute ruler.

Just look at the definitions, they are pretty straight forward. My comments are based on the dictionary definitions of the words, as should be your comments.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I do not agree that Obama was born in Hawaii either, or that he IS legally the President. Any other questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Perhaps you can tell me which word in "I don't think that Obama is a tyrant" you are having trouble understanding?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"I do not agree that Obama was born in Hawaii either, or that he IS legally the President"

Why not?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps you can tell me which word in "I don't think that Obama is a tyrant" you are having trouble understanding?"

I don't understand why you use the Thomas Jefferson "Tree of Liberty" quotation that references the "blood of tyrants" if you don't think Obama is a tyrant.

Perhaps you can explain.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Certainly, it's intended as a warning and, just in case Obama continues down this path (Hitler wasn't a "tyrant" in 1932 either), I want to have my moral case for opposition ready to go. I do not agree that Obama was born in Hawaii -- and therefore legally President of the United States -- because I was not present for said birth and he refuses to release his LONG FORM birth certificate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a plan to pay for the middle class tax cuts. Do the Republicans have a plan to pay for the tax cuts for the rich? Or are they just planning to borrow it from China again and tack it on the deficit?

If Repubblicans have a plan to actually pay for it this time, the country is waiting to hear about it.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 10, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

That wasn't even a very good try by Ethan, who just -- again -- revealed that his argument is no more than a tautology.

Just using Ethan's own definition of tyranny, our government can satisfy meanings 1, 4, 5, and 6 just as easily as it can his definition of plutocracy.

A President or Congress can indeed exercise "arbitrary" power or take "oppressive" action. Having been "duly elected" does not render all their actions, "by definition," outside these descriptions.
Indeed, I've read innumerable arguments on this blog by Ethan and other liberals that claim just these hallmarks of tyranny are present.

All you have to do is go back to the archives a read what liberals said about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA intelligence programs, enhanced interrogation, DOMA, same sex marriage bans, etc. etc. You could go on forever cataloguing all the instances they themselves have claimed of "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power," "oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler."

This, Ethan, :

"But for America to be a tyranny, would necessitate there being a tyrant in charge of the government. That is something specifically disallowed by our form of representative democracy as designed in the Constitution."

What is your proof that we are a representative democracy free of tyranny? Merely that the government was "designed in the Constitution" this way.

But if the government is not functioning according to its consititutional design, then your argument collapses.

You didn't do so well here, considering that you were only debating a stupid anti-intellectual.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Oops, bad editing: That should have said This, Ethan, is a tautology:"

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly, it's intended as a warning and, just in case Obama continues down this path (Hitler wasn't a "tyrant" in 1932 either), I want to have my moral case for opposition ready to go."

What -- specifically -- would make Obama worthy of a "moral case" for assassination?

What -- specifically -- would make Obama "as bad as Hitler"?

"I do not agree that Obama was born in Hawaii"

Where was he born?

"I was not present for said birth and he refuses to release his LONG FORM birth certificate."

Were you present for George W. Bush's birth?

If not, has he released his LONG FORM birth certificate?

Were you present for Sarah Palin's birth?

If not, has she released her LONG FORM birth certificate?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"What is your proof that we are a representative democracy free of tyranny?"

Under the dictionary's definition of "tyranny" there are only 3 which apply specifically to a state or government, and those are definition numbers 2, 3, and 4:

2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

We are not governed by an absolute ruler because of the 3 branches of the federal government formed under the U.S. Constitution.

America is not a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler for the same reason.

Definition #4 is subjective, therefore under this definition your question cannot logically have a definitive answer.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

What -- specifically -- would make Obama worthy of a "moral case" for assassination?What -- specifically -- would make Obama "as bad as Hitler"?

If he killed 6 million Jews, obviously. There are countless ways. Do you want me to keep going?

Where was he born?

I don't know.

Were you present for George W. Bush's birth?

No.

If not, has he released his LONG FORM birth certificate?

No, because there was never a question raised about where he was born.

Were you present for Sarah Palin's birth?

No.

If not, has she released her LONG FORM birth certificate?

No (but I fully expect that she will if she decides to run for President).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"If he killed 6 million Jews, obviously. There are countless ways. Do you want me to keep going?"

You said that Obama might be like Hitler if he "continues down this path."

Do you think Obama is currently going down the path of killing 6 million Jews?

What makes you think that?

What do you think about the fact that a vast majority of Jews voted for Obama in 2008?

Do you think that we are stupid sheep being led to slaughter?

"No, because there was never a question raised about where [Bush] was born."

I'm questioning it now.

Where is his LONG FORM birth certificate?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

1. Your attempt to avoid meanings 1, 5, and 6 is specious. If we can be subject to tyranny, your argument fails. And we can be, under those meanings.

2. By your own admission, you lose under meaning 4 because you made an absulote claim that is improvable.

3. You even lose u.derived the others because a tyrant includes rulers who act tyrannically (see above).

Now admit your argument has been demolished.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh the darned autocorrect!

unprovable not improvable

And "under"

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Do you think Obama is currently going down the path of killing 6 million Jews? What makes you think that?

If he is the Anti-Christ, yes. As I said, there are other ways, but I simply gave you the most obvious.

What do you think about the fact that a vast majority of Jews voted for Obama in 2008?

Nothing.

Do you think that we are stupid sheep being led to slaughter?

I have no opinion on that.

I'm questioning it now.

Feel free to (he's no longer President, nor can he Constitutionally ever run for President again ; )

Where is his LONG FORM birth certificate?

In the Connecticut Department of Public Health, State Office of Vital Records.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"Your attempt to avoid meanings 1, 5, and 6 is specious. If we can be subject to tyranny, your argument fails. And we can be, under those meanings."

If we include subjective definitions that don't specifically relate to the topic at hand, then yes it is possible that some people might think we live in a tyranny.

Those people are, as I've said previously, either insane or don't understand our form of government.

That's why -- unlike you -- I decided to stick to the relevant objective definitions to make my case.

"You even lose u.derived the others because"

WHAAA?

English please.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think that we are stupid sheep being led to slaughter?

I have no opinion on that."

So, according to you, Joke, Jews MIGHT actually be stupid sheep being led to slaughter.

Nice to know! It is illuminating to read what you think of a people who have practiced a religion and lived in a culture that is over 2,500 years old.

"If he is the Anti-Christ, yes."

Was Hitler the Anti-Christ?

Because, ya know, Hitler actually *DID* slaughter 6 million Jews and I never hear you say that Hitler was the Anti-Christ.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

At least we aren't talking about Michael Steel [SIC] anymore ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You never hear me say that Hitler was the Anti-Christ because Hitler is dead and (obviously) did not usher in the return of Christ.

Anymore questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, stop digging. You are standing in the crater where your argument was nuked.

Sorry for the bad typing above. I was driving. And still shredded that sorry excuse for an argument.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"(obviously) did not usher in the return of Christ."

If Hitler, who killed 6 million Jews, wasn't the anti-Christ, then why do you expect Obama -- the duly-elected President of the United States with no plan to kill 6 million of any ethnicity -- to be the anti-Christ?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry for the bad typing above. I was driving."

Wow, you really ARE stupid.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

And that would mean your argument was shredded by a stupid guy while driving.

Btw just to beat the dead carcass of your argument, note that your plutocracy argument was based on a "subjective" argument as well. Now I will let you get back to Hitler and the Antichrist.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

The Secret Service still haven't arrived (yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company