The Darkest Period in Human History?

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the FDR presidency. Under this tyrant the top tax rate on our beloved wealthy Makers was increased to a mind-boggling 94%. This asshole even had the gall to suggest that rich folks should pay 100% after earning 350k (in today's dollars)! Which is obviously peanuts. Enough for a middle class loser to get by on, but clearly not enough for a worthy rich man to live in style. I mean, you've got to have enough to pay your servants.

As a runner up "darkest period" I'm going with when the gorgeous, delightful, and talented Polly Pergen left "To Tell the Truth" in 1961 and was replaced by the dumpy, acerbic, and difficult to watch Peggy Cass. What a fat uggo! IMO only good looking women should be allowed on TV. I'm even opposed to having uggos in "character" rolls. "Character actor" being code for unpleasant in appearance. Only men should be character actors, I think. I mean, why subject your audience's eyes to unnecessary pain?

The brightest period in human history? It might surprise you, but my selection is the years 1346 to 1353. This would be peak years of the Black Death. The Black Death being "one of the most devastating pandemics in human history". The disease swept Europe, killing an estimated 75 to 200 million people, or 30–60% of Europe's total population.

So, why do I consider this to be a "bright" period? Because (as I pointed out in a prior commentary) the Black Death raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague's victims. Not that I necessarily care about the living standard of worthless poors. No, but that millions of these parasites were exterminated is a "good" that would surely have made Ayn Rand smile.

Rand would absolutely agree that poors going to an early grave when there is an overabundance of them is a positive, and definitely something that should happen at least once in awhile. I mean, we want their numbers to be high enough so that the price of labor is low, but not so high that they consume too much resources (think a plague of locusts).

There is also the possibility that, if they become too numerous and if their living conditions become too horrid (especially compared to their wealthy superiors) they could rise up. The execution of the Romanov family being but one historical example of a revolution of the lower classes leading to the deaths of superior wealthy people.

Something that might have happened under FDR if the wealthy individuals that the tyrant FDR plundered had resisted, given the fact that (ultimately) the theft of money from rich people (in the form of taxes) is extracted via the barrel of a gun.

Which is pretty fucked in the head if you ask me, given that the wealthy earned their money via entrepreneurship, ingenuity, vision, and risk-taking through a series of voluntary associations. Yet they're the criminals if they don't pay this protection money.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-261.

Tamir Rice's Life Did Not Matter

Have you heard that the Smithsonian Museum (in cahoots with Black Lives Matter) wants to preserve the Cleveland gazebo where the 12-year-old thug-in-training Tamir Rice was fatally shot?

And the likelihood that they'd be doing this is if the person who pulled the trigger wasn't a white cop but instead, Ray Ray, Mookie, Slice, Puffy Boy, or Dre would be what exactly? Zero would be my guesstimate.

I say it was his mother's fault. For letting him play with a toy gun. We all know it was only a matter of time before he picked up a real gun. And used it to rob (and/or kill) a White man. Probably for the best that the cop put him down. And this fact (obviously) explains why the officer wasn't charged.

"The shooting of Tamir Rice was reasonable under the circumstances" was the conclusion of two reports. So, that a "wrongful" death claim was filed and settled for 6 million (SIX FUCKING MILLION) is a development I find OUTRAGEOUS! I bet Tamir's Taker family was able to set their grief aside pretty quickly. Given the fact that they are now millionaires. Money pilfered from White taxpayers - yet again!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of racism. LLIN-259.

On The Fact That Poor People (AKA Lucky Duckies) Are Not Paying Their Fair Share In Taxes

Yes, it is a fact that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. This while the top quintile pays 3.5 times as much in taxes as they get back in government benefits.

So who's not paying their "fair share" again? Please, remind me. Clearly it's these lucky duckies. Not that I wish that I was poor and could loaf (sit on the couch eating cheetos and hot pockets, drinking Mountain Dew while watching "Game of Thrones" on my 4K big screen UHDTV). But I'm a Maker and not a lazy Taker.

But if you are poor and a lazy piece of shit (the two go hand in hand, btw, with the vast majority of poors being lazy fuckers who want to smoke weed and collect welfare)? Then, thanks to Liberals (who can only get elected by buying votes via free stuff paid for by over-taxing moderately well-to-do Makers like myself) then you surely are a "lucky ducky".

What explains this outrage? According to the Leftist publication "Mother Jones", many in the bottom quintile pay NO taxes!

...the federal tax code is designed not to tax the poor, the elderly, or low-income families with children, and there are more of these in America than you'd think. One way or another, it turns out, this accounts for about 40% of the country. (Breaking Down the Lucky Duckies).

Obviously SOME in the bottom quintile must pay taxes (while MANY don't). And, when you average it out, the result is that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. Which I say is WRONG. If you're not paying in I say you should get NOTHING. As Ayn Rand put it, if these lazy loafers STILL refuse to work after their free stuff is removed, "nature will take it's course". And the poor loser will die.

Which I support 100% (that if lazy loafers refuse to work they SHOULD die. Good riddance, I say). And, NO, I don't give a shit if they're elderly or disabled. Or "can't work" for some other reason. No excuses, no exceptions. You don't work, you die.

Keeping these parasites alive at the expense of the rich man is an OUTRAGE! Frankly I think we need to abolish the victim class. Sadly, it will only come about via force (and by force I don't mean through violence but rather by changing our policies, allowing nature to take it's course, etc.) in that most folks are just too scared to be held responsible. And there's just way too much power and money at stake (government bureaucrats/programs, special interest groups, etc.) for a voluntary conclusion to occur. Hopefully it doesn't get too get ugly along the way.

By which I mean some kind of uprising. Get to work or die (if that is your choice). And, a poor man dying in the gutter isn't "ugly" at all. In fact I'd say it's poetic justice. By-the-way, if the poors were to rise up (after the elimination of their freebies), then I'd be OK with the State putting them to death. Looters should be shot (an instant death penalty that would be totally justified). As Mayor Daley said "shoot to kill".

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-258.

On Why I'm A Climate Change Skeptic

It is a fact that A) the earth's climate Is a chaotic system and B) because of that any attempt at predicting the weather hundreds of years into the future is a fool's errand on steroids.

And yet our fascistic and moronic politicians continue to think otherwise, spout ridiculous claims (that 97% of scientists agree with their views, that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, that we already possess the technology to significantly decarbonize, etc.), and proclaim that they can control the climate through such idiotic initiatives as cap and trade, a carbon tax, green energy boondoggles, etc. How utterly embarrassing.

Although some might say that the embarrassment should be felt by deniers such as myself. If I were to be completely honest, I'd have to admit that deniers like me are huge liars and totally full of shit. For example, I pulled the typical denier fast one by conflating weather and climate. Then I lied about the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

As for decarbonizing, certainly there is technology that currently exists that could make some significant progress toward this goal. The purpose of referring to green energy projects as a "boondoggles" is to STOP further progress toward decarbonization. Personally, I'm a big fan of dirty fossil fuels. They are there, and it would be foolish of our plutocrats to leave big profits on the table.

What's more important, folks; saving our planet or further enriching our beloved oligarchs? Obviously, as a Conservative, I'm for the latter and NOT the former. Actually, if hundreds of millions of worthless poor people die... that would be awesome IMO. Remember that the Black Death, which "reduced world population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in the 14th century", had POSITIVE benefits.

...the Black Death raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague's victims. One sign of this was that peasant families, who, before the plague, were so poor that they sat at the dinner table on a common bench and ate from a common plate, now had individual stools and plates. This higher standard of living would lead to a more even wealth distribution and the recovery of the economy after 1450. (The Black Death and its Impact. c.1300-1450).

Now, one might think that, as a Libertarian, I'd be strongly opposed to "a more even wealth distribution", but what we saw following the Black Death was that those in extreme poverty were raised up to a poverty level that was moderate. Sure, millions will die due to the coming climate catastrophe, most of those will be among the world's poorest. But among those who survive there still will be many who are extremely poor (as most of the population of the world is quite poor).

What I'm saying is that I'm fine with a more even wealth distribution among the poor of the world. The plutocrats will be able to hold onto what is theirs and even increase their wealth when the apocalypse comes (apocalypse in the eyes of those the poor, MANY of which will be exterminated, mostly due to flooding and famine).

BTW, as for the poors being "exterminated", I use that word because surely poor people are a plague upon the world (my view as an Ayn Rand-worshipping Libertarian). Those of us who remain will all be in a better off position (at least in the long term). Which is why I WELCOME the coming climate change catastrophes.

And why I lie about those trying to stop them as being "ridiculous". The world needs a good Randian fumigation to rid the world of the parasites. Moochers like the greedy Bernie voters who think they deserve what the wealthy man has worked hard for. Or worked hard to steal by exploiting workers (as is their right). I'll be applauding when these assholes start starving/dying en masse.

Byline: This awesome Randian commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of climate change denialism. LLIN-232.

On "Their Fair Share"

Folks like Obama and Sanders are always saying that the rich need to pay "their fair share". But they never, ever, ever, ever, EVER, articulate what that amount should be. Naturally, as a Libertarian I think what would be fair is ZERO. This is because I believe that all taxes are theft, and is any theft (even if it's just a little) OK? Of course it isn't.

In any case, here are the current stats (2012 returns being the most recent) - According to the IRS (data compiled by the Tax Foundation), the top 1 percent (1.37 million taxpayers earning $434,682 and more) paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes, the top 5 percent (those earning $175,817 and more) paid 59 percent, the top 10 percent (those earning $125,195 and up) paid 70 percent, and the top 25 percent (those earning $73,354 and up) paid 86 percent.

Sure, these people make most of the money, so some argue that they SHOULD be paying most of the taxes, but I say we squeeze the bottom 50 percent (people earning $36,055 and less). I mean, these parasites paid a little less than 3 percent of federal income taxes with slightly over 90 percent of those households having no federal income tax liability at all (many actually GETTING money from the government in the form of earned income tax credit)!

Yeah, it's outrageous, right? The government obviously needs money to operate (I'm not for anarchy), so if there is going to be any stealing to run the government, I say steal from these folks. The free ride should end. Tax these poor freeloading losers until they squeal and allow the wealthy Makers to keep what they earn. That would be a LOT fairer than our current system.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of taxing the shit out of low income losers. LLIN-205.

On the Fact that Banking, Mortgages, and Housing Were the Three Most Regulated Sectors of the American Economy and Yet this is Exactly Where the Problems Erupted Leading Up to the Financial Collapse

A total coinkydink, I gather. By which I mean I'm totally pushing the bullshit from the Right that OVER regulation caused the collapse. Because, when it comes to Libertarian lies concerning regulation of the financial sector being bad, I'm a total stooge for our plutocratic overlords.

For example, Cato says Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the law that repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall) and allowed "the mixing of investment and commercial banking" was not responsible for the financial crisis. Cato says too much regulation is to blame. They say "Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act".

And, given the fact that Cato is Libertarian Think Tank that I frequently reference on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly (although I usually don't say who I'm quoting), I completely agree with them. The blame, in my opinion, should be heaped upon government (via the CRA and Fannie and Freddie) and on poor people who could not afford homes being given loans they would never be able to pay back.

So what if this is total bullplop?

...the false narrative [is] that the financial crisis was caused by... government regulators [who] used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force banks to make loans to undeserving poor people and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased doomed subprime mortgage backed securities to meet the affordable housing goals. This [so goes the false narrative] was the main cause of the crisis. The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time... again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995, the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What's more, most subprime lenders weren't banks and therefore weren't even subject to CRA. That's why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit. Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements. By the time Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products, they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy. Moreover, while they also bought private subprime mortgage backed securities for their investment portfolio – an inarguably bad idea – those purchases did little to meet the housing goals. For the most part, Fannie and Freddie-guaranteed loans have performed, and are still performing, remarkably better than the toxic products pioneered by subprime lenders. The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation's financial institutions. (Excerpt from No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis by David Sanchez. ThinkProgress 8/15/2013).

What this article points out is that I, Willis Hart, am totally full of shit! That does not matter to me, as I simply do not care what "Think Regress" says (even though this article accurately recounts the real causes of the financial crisis).

Because lazy low-skilled losers earning low wages (all they deserve) who wanted a home without earning it and government regulators "forcing" banks to loan them money they could never pay back is the better narrative, IMO.

Because it lets the real culprits totally off the hook! And, given that I am a stooge for the plutocrats who benefited from the crisis, I absolutely do NOT want them to be assigned any blame (even though they deserve it). Which is why I eagerly buy into the BS about OVER regulation being responsible for the financial crisis. Because if we were to crack down and increase the regulations... well, then the plutocrats couldn't do it again (make tons of money by duping poor people into signing up for predatory mortgages).

And that would be bad. Very bad.

Byline: This stoogish commentary was authored by the true-believing stooge Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of blind stoogery. LLIN-166.