The American Spectator : Big Lies in Politics

Text Size

Big Lies in Politics

By Thomas Sowell on 7.31.12 @ 6:07AM

The Nazi philosophy of lying to the public prevails in the current administration.

It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough. Although the Nazis were defeated in World War II, this part of their philosophy survives triumphantly to this day among politicians, and nowhere more so than during election years.

Perhaps the biggest lie of this election year, and the one likely to be repeated the most often, is that the income of “the rich” is going up, while other people’s incomes are going down. If you listen to Barack Obama, you are bound to hear this lie repeatedly.

But the government’s own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the “top one percent” that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.

Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else?

The answer is that the data cited by the Congressional Budget Office are based on Internal Revenue Service statistics for specific individuals and specific households over time. The IRS can follow individuals and households because it can identify the same people over time from their Social Security numbers.

Most other data, including census data, are based on compiling statistics in a succession of time periods, without the ability to tell if the actual people in each income bracket are the same from one time period to the next. The turnover of people is substantial in all brackets — and is huge in the top one percent. Most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade.

All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that “top one percent” is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year, for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.

There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience.

Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as “the poor.” But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets.

The number who reach all the way to the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up in politics and the media when they discuss “the rich” and “the poor.”

There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But “the rich” and “the poor” in this sense are unlikely to add up to even ten percent of the population.

Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.

Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them.

These transferrers are in both government and private social welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

About the Author

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (123) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

MelvinNC| 7.31.12 @ 7:26AM

A reporter shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union asked a KGB official, "What made it so easy to enslave millions of people?" the KGB official smiled and took a long drag on his Soviet cigarette and smiled, "It was easy, we kept the masses ignorant. An ignorant man does not question the state, he fears it and obeys it. An educated man does not fear the state and therefore is a threat to the state and must how you say....... be removed."

Alan| 7.31.12 @ 7:37AM

IN this country, ignorance is a religion, the only difference being that the educated man that they feared is an assett here because of a propagandized educational system. What the state fears here is the SELF-educated independant man.

Petronius| 7.31.12 @ 11:32AM

Well. Modesty prevents me. Thanks anyway.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:05PM

This is a true story, or set of true stories: I have personally experienced more than one person telling me that their ignorance/stupidity (pick one) is their right.

I suppose the corollary to that is that others must somehow respect that ignorance.

pelayho| 7.31.12 @ 7:09PM

every body in the US is granted by the constitution the right to be moreon.

Jack in Wi| 7.31.12 @ 10:00AM

Of course Obama is a massive liar and so is Romney. Neither one of them wants to address the real problems of this country but continue to lie and spin until most of the electorate will stay home this election. I predict 50% of the people won't vote in this election. The winner will be the guy with the best machine. Obama with his labor union support has the best machine. The Republicans can win only when fully energized. Romney energizes no-one.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 10:09AM

And I predict you will still be a putz and complaining years from now because Dr. Paul let you down.

Warrior| 7.31.12 @ 11:01AM

Your view is way too narrow. Elections are much deeper than just voting for President. Unfortunately, our public education and media have dumbed this down to having the lemmings believe this about the election of one person. The real importance lies in getting conservatives into office at all levels. If there are enough republican ideas that can get passed, they can drag a POTUS kicking and screaming (Slick Willie) to the signing table. We have allowed the office of President to be deified when the Founders were telling us to avoid this kind of simple mindedness.

JP| 7.31.12 @ 3:21PM

The real problems of this nation cannot be addressed by politicians. That is the mistake of Modern Man. Today's voter looks to politics in order to solve many of their problems. But, most of their problems stem from pride, lust, avarice, etc... Liberty is to be enjoyed by the virtuous a wise man once said. And politics does not instill virtue.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:21PM

romney's spokesman lost his temper and said "stick it up your @ss", or something.
Romney's people are short-tempered.

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:46PM

In immortal words of a not so great american of about 15 years ago, "So What!" The MSM consists of corrupt and dishonest idiots. Who cares what those fools think.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:04PM

How quickly you forget Robert Gibbs.

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 2:06PM

I bet you were the first to line up, eh Brooksie?

Anyone But Obama| 7.31.12 @ 3:07PM

Good one genius.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:06PM

Well, it WAS a big f**king deal, right?

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 8:14AM

Excellent article from my contemporary hero, Dr. Sowell.
But a slightly different tact also reveals the flaw in the statist argument. With an MBA in Accounting, one clearly understands that wealth is NOT taxed except at death. Income is taxed because it is liquid and because the rich elite can secure their position over time by kicking the ladder out from underneath them when they reach the top 1%.

John Kerry is a filthy rich man since he married the Heinz family. During his presidential run, it was uncovered that they paid far, far less than the 15% capital gains tax Romney paid on his recent earnings.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how embarrassingly stupid the next generation of Kennedy's become, they still stay filthy rich? That is because they are not taxed on their wealth and they shelter their income.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 8:29AM

The problem is that none of these "Trees" - like Kerry's Billions, and Obama's Past, and Present - that are Falling in the Woods, are being Reported on.

Thus, nobody hears them.

Thus, they never really fell.

If we had an Honest Press, doing their Constitutionally Protected Job? Romney wouldn't be ahead of Obama. He'd be ahead of the Presumptive Democrat Nominee?

Obama would have already given The LBJ Speech.

IF we had an Honest Press.

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 9:04AM

The MSM is not our eyes and ears. The people who are suffering losing homes, jobs, wealth and freedom are the eyes and ears of America.

And we do have an honest press. We are contributing to it, my friend TLP. That is why Perp does not go away. TAS, AT, Drudge, JWR, Breitbart and many other sites report the truth along with Rush and Levin.
Rush has 25M listeners per week and as many as half of that listening at one time. CNN has an audience of 125K at peak hour. Nobody is listening to Obama or CNN any longer.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 9:26AM

You are correct in stating that there are "SOME" outlets, where the Truth comes out.

The problem is that they represent a Minority.

These things should be EVERYWHERE, and yet they're not.

Do you believe that Black America has any idea of the Unemployment Rate of Black Americans?

I don't think they do.

Do you think that everybody knows the REAL REASONS there aren't any Jobs? Or that Obama sent Thousands of Stimulus Money Paid for Jobs, Overseas. Or, that John Corzine is on his Payroll?

Or, do they only hear about THE RICH stealing everything that Really Belongs to THEM?

(If you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises? SEE IT!)

Cause that's what we're looking at, if this guy gets 4 more years.

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 10:32AM

As always, you make lucid and valid points, TLP. But while the situation is dire if the people re-elect a socialist regime, they will be the ones that suffer the most.
There is a possibility that the nation will be torn apart, but the good news is that places like TX, SC, TN and many other Red states will be a new home for people such as you and me. We have skills and are educated.
The morons that would potentially put a Communist (See Paul Kangor's book review) back in the White House that are on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc. because they are dependent on the government to feed them. If the regime fails, they are SOL. Perhaps that is part of the progressives plan. They may wish to rid themselves of the underclass along with the seniors. Surprise, surprise as Gomer would say. Won't Perp be shocked?
But if we have a reset, it is not the end of the world unless the totalitarians prevail over the states and the people. But either way, the leeches who surrendered their freedom and depended on the EBT card are the ones in the precarious position, not we that are independent of handouts from an insolvent government.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:33PM

GO SEE BATMAN!

You won't believe your eyes.

Cobalt| 7.31.12 @ 11:51AM

90% to 95% of Black America doesn't care about anything other than the fact that Obama isn't a damn white man.

rockyracoon| 7.31.12 @ 3:37PM

Very true statement Cobalt.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:32PM

Which is why they will NEVER leave their Ghettos.

Bob K| 7.31.12 @ 8:59AM

Wealth becomes taxable at death because death causes it to be transferred. From this comes the old saw: "You can't take it with you." The transfer takes place either by will or by the laws governing intestacy both of which are interpreted by the courts. Lawyers and/or estate counselors have devised many ways to keep this wealth in families for generations without having the brunt of it lost to taxes. What was good for the Rockefellers is great for the Kennedys! We all know people like this. Members of the lucky sperm club whose grandparents had great lawyers and who live by the maxim: "Never touch the Principal of your Trust Fund. Live off the interest and dividends."

Meanwhile the people who inherit their wealth in farmland or small businesses and who do not have access to ready cash are the one's who suffer trying to come up with money when it comes time to pay the Inheritance Taxes the federal and state governments charge them. They are treated as if they hit one of the lotteries and the government must have it's money right now!

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 9:50AM

Most farmers who stand to inherit anything usually have capable enough lawyers to keep from having to pay much in the way of inheritance taxes. The most successful farmers and businesses are smart enough to have a well thought out succession plan. The ones that dont usually arent really all that successful and get out before it becomes an issue.

Bob K| 7.31.12 @ 10:36AM

It also explains why so few of them are being started now.

And it might explain why the nation's immigration policy is so lax.

We have quite a few of these immigrants in my area working in rather large family businesses which still would qualify as small business, compared to large American businesses like Heinz or others with American names who do most of their business with China and the Far East.

These businesses are purely local. Many of the people who own and run these businesses are 3rd generation grandchildren of the founders of the businesses.

TrueBlue | 7.31.12 @ 2:32PM

The fact that we have an inheritance tax at all is BS anyway. The money was taxed when originally made and that should be the end of the conversation. It never ceases to amaze me how many people still support this crud, right until it affects them. Then they're up in arms, too late.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:37PM

An Inheritance Tax, as well as a Progressive Tax Code, and The Government owning as much of the Land as they can get their hands on, are all enumerated in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Look it up!

Bob K| 7.31.12 @ 6:51PM

It's not going to go away. Too many tax attorneys and investment counselors will lose their jobs.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:22PM

Biggest lie was by Bush 41:
"read my lips, no new taxes."

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:11PM

What self-contradiction. You condemn a nominal conservative for failing to adhere to a promise to be conservative, even though you yourself are glad he raised taxes.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:43PM

He's an Idiot.

Ignore him.

jmulcahy1| 7.31.12 @ 11:39PM

I am pretty sure it was Clinton lying under oath, committing perjury, suborning perjury, subsequently getting disbarred.

H Riordan| 7.31.12 @ 2:58PM

Interesting. Would you have wealth taxed? Implicit in that assumption is that all wealth belongs to the government, and that our truly benign government lets us keep some of it.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 3:53PM

More importantly, a wealth tax penalizes non-spending. Picture two people, each with $10,000. One spends it all. The other holds it, and each year some of it is taxed away. Soon the person who spent nothing will also have nothing, thanks to the tax!

Of course, liberals believe that spending drives the economy, so to them, not spending is a crime worthy of a tax penalty. (We'll let John Roberts decide whether it's a tax or a penalty!)

JimH| 7.31.12 @ 8:24AM

The Nazis did not invent the big lie. They did give the method a bit of a scientific gloss. Lying to one’s people has existed as long as there has been someone bossing others.
What’s pernicious in this country is that while many are ignorant, they are not unschooled. They have received pieces of paper called diplomas stating that they are educated. They therefore think themselves informed. They may have in fact learned things, though much they have been taught was untrue. This is a much more effective method than doing things such as prohibiting reading as was done with slaves

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 8:54AM

As usual, Sowell is doing his best Goebbels impression telling the big lie. And what a WHOPPER he tells.
http://www.economist.com/blogs.....ty-america
or this one:
http://thesocietypages.org/gra.....e-in-2011/
Just like RomBot, he confuses income with wealth. With his wealth, Romney needs no more income, neither do the 1%. But he criticizes the lower 20% because they still need income from somewhere to eat, have shelter and live. Seems to be I saw somewhere that "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is endowed by our creator. And Jesus preached as do all religions to help those less than ourselves - not criticize or castigate them.
Shame on you Thomas Sowell. You're a political hack and nothing more.

squalis| 7.31.12 @ 9:41AM

INVADE THE 1% CASTLES! FRANKENSCHTINE'S ALL! (Mel Brooks reference)

squalis| 7.31.12 @ 9:42AM

When will it become 2%? 5%? 10? 30?

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 10:01AM

What a hoot, Purp the twerp taking on the one of the most respected economists and intellectuals of the 20th and 21st century.
Your inane comments have zero reference to any point made by Sowell. Did you hit your head this morning when getting off your prayer rug?
Jeez twerp, just because Obozo got a Nobel Prize for showing up, doesn't mean it extends to trolls like you.
Best you crawl back into your hole.

PolishKnight| 7.31.12 @ 10:23AM

Anthony, I'm reminded of a punk rock group in the late 80's that made history for peeing on their fans during concerts. Was it the Sex Pistols?

White male leftists remind me of those kinds of guys. What's in it for them? They aren't helping to make a future Sweden (they realize that they're making Detroit and Newark instead) and most of their cheerleading is about simply beating Republicans rather than any "progressive" goal to a better society rather than simply trying to win elections (unless they can be stolen, of course, or gerrymandered away.) They are as sore losers as they are ungracious winners (when they lose, they cry like 2 year olds but when they win under suspicious circumstances, such as Al Franken or committing perjury as Bill Clinton did, they think it's rather funny to get away with it.)

So what's the point then of being a white male leftist cheerleader? It's to get peed on by the leftist establishment. They don't get anything other than a good beating if they wander into non-white
Democrat controlled areas so they hang around in the purple suburbs hating their neighbors even as they don't care leave them. They're worse than Trekkies because at least Trekkies are NICE!

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 12:23PM

Are you that stupid? Can't you read
Read what the "Economist" journal says - Argue with them, I think they know more than you or the "Respected" Boob Sowell.

squalis| 7.31.12 @ 1:15PM

Purp showing his racism.

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 2:08PM

Purp,

Making it up again, I see.

The article was written last year and the analysis was through 2007.

C'mon Man!| 7.31.12 @ 3:42PM

Oh, they call themselves Economists, therefore they are...
Let me try that - I will call myself Purp...
Nope, still intelligent, clearly not Purp!

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:46PM

You just saved a Rant.

Nice job, Anthony.

Thomas Sowell is a National Treasure.

Him, and his buddy - Walter E. Williams.

My Heros.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 10:22AM

Babble, Babble, Babble.

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 12:14PM

Obamaboy purpie
When will you answer:

1. Explain how Michelle got a raise from $100,000 to $317,000 per year as "community relations attorney" from the Chicago hospital that got a million dollar earmark courtesy of Senator Obama?

2. Explain why and how Chicago crook Rezko partially paid for Obama's property.

3. Why doesn't Obama help his starving poor half brother in Kenya from his millions, or does he need an earmark for that too?

4. Why won't Obama release the records of Fast and Furious under subpoena when he has leaked and disclosed all our interrogation methods, our internet wars against Iran, the details of Seal Team Six, and other nationa security matters?

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:23PM

Purp,
we need a defense tax.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:01PM

I would love to see liberals attempt to break our taxes out by what they go to fund. Then we could all see, so clearly, how many people benefit from things they don't pay for, and pay for things they don't benefit from.

You liberals would hate the results of such an idea.

Of course, that's not what you proposed. You wanted a new tax, in addition to all existing taxes, to be enacted, and all defense spending to come solely from the new tax. That way, ALL existing taxes could be spent EXCLUSIVELY on the liberal agenda, while you could blame the ENTIRE pain of the new tax on defense, and advocate cuts only to defense in response.

And you actually think you're being clever with such a suggestion. My gosh, sometimes I have little choice but to conclude that you people truly are evil.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 12:33PM

Purp, often times you display misdirected intelligence, or the use of intelligence in an effort to win on behalf of a bad idea. You fail to win, but at least you represent the best the Left can do.

This time, you're just an idiot. You linked to two examples of the Big Lie that Sowell debunked, and nothing about your links does anything other than display the very flaw that Sowell pointed to - a lumping together of different people who have high incomes at different points in time, as if they're all the same people.

Then you claimed that Sowell " confuses income with wealth". That claim comes out of left field. Sowell talked exclusively about income, and the liberals he criticized talk exclusively about income. Everything was apples-to-apples; only you are trying to conflate income with wealth.

You seemed to recognize your folly, because you quickly changed your approach to classic Marxist "to each according to his need". Ignoring any details of income OR wealth deltas, you went to "rich people need nothing, poor people need much, and Jesus said poor people do no wrong." Or somesuch.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:47PM

You're wrong.

He's a Drone.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 6:21PM

If he's a drone, then he's getting his talking points from somewhere. That somewhere has intelligence, which he usually reflects.

Do not make the mistake of underestimating your opponents. If they had no intelligence at all, they'd be no threat to us. But just as half-truths are more dangerous than outright lies, so too the somewhat intelligent, but misguided, are more formidable than the idiots. The Left possesses such intelligence.

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 9:10AM

The Democrat Party and Obozo's penchant to replicate the Big Lie was there for all of us to see when Obozo stumbled into Chief SittingBullshit Warren's Marxist collectivism.
Obozo goes on for minutes telling us "you didn't build that" in graphic descriptive sentences. It gets coverage in ways the Nazi's could never have dreamed of in '39, yet Obozo tells us WE got it wrong.
Then the whores in the MSM, again in ways never dreamed or hoped for by the Nazis, go into full protective mode.
The MSM are more complicit in Obozo's lies than the German media were under direct control by Hitler!!!
The masks and gloves are off with the left. The constant lies, the threats to honest businesses if they do not share the same political ideas as their corrupt city dictators demand tell us the left is going for broke.
America is under assault, we need to fight back. Romney and the Rs had better wake the hell up. This ain't Harry Truman's Democrat Party.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 11:07AM

And, yet, it's not a lie:
http://www.economist.com/blogs.....ty-america
It's real, and it's felt by millions of people.
Another right wing myth debunked.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 12:35PM

Purp clings to his straw men, and never understands when he's been debunked.

Your liberal policies CAUSE income inequality, and as Sowell's article above (which clearly flew over your head) states, graphs like yours treat the "rich" and "poor" as static blocs, not as different people each year, which they are.

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 2:09PM

Purp,

I'm repeating myself, but the article was written last year and the analysis was through 2007. The CBO data Sowell refers to is current.

lost| 7.31.12 @ 5:01PM

First off so what that the rich keep getting richer. They are not stealing it. Though you and yours like to pretend that is the case but in truth it is nothing more than jealousy. The top 1% will always make the bottom 99% seem poor.
Which brings me to my next point the top 1% pay 36% of all income tax yet only earn 17% of all income. So stop crying about how unfair life is. What has made America great is if you do not like your lot in life you can go and make something of yourself. Life ain't fair, get over it.

lost| 7.31.12 @ 5:02PM

Oh for got to post the link to where I got my numbers from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/be.....pays-what/

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 9:56AM

A very good book on this subject is called High Beta Rich. The author did a good job explaining how most of the rich or 1% usually dont stay in that catagory very long. The problem is that State, Local and Fed governments like to spend money based on the notion that these peoples tax revenues will be the same year after year.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 11:08AM

Distraction from the issue.
Income inequality is real, and the system rewards those at the top with special access, favors and tax breaks.

Bob K| 7.31.12 @ 11:38AM

So what?

You could be talking about any political or economic system that has ever existed in history.

George S| 7.31.12 @ 11:59AM

Don't you realize that you yourself can put a stop to the 1 percent getting more money. In fact, you have the power to ruin them.

("I do?...")

Yes. Simply make it your life's mission to stop purchasing all products and services made by -- or made possible by -- the 1 percent.

Start computers. Do not use any computer for the rest of your life. Then get rid of all your credit cards (makes Wall Street rich). Then never purchase a gallon of gasoline or ride in anything that uses gasoline. Or fly in an airplane built by Boeing. Or watch any TV show or movie where an actor is paid more than a million. Or go to a supermarket chain. Or order food from a restaurant chain.

Or buy any food or beverage owned, operated or affiliated with Nestle, Kraft, Dole, General Mills, Pepsico, Unilever, and Archer Daniels Midland. That should leave you with growing your own -- but don't ask for any help for products made by Monsanto or Dupont.

Then you can stop using heating oil. Refrigerators, too. Video games... not. iPods, smartphones, cell phones... sorry.

Then you can take you comfort in the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. No... those are owned by one percenters, too. Shame. Looks like life would really suck a fat ass tailpipe without the one percenters.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 12:02PM

George, that was beautiful!!

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 2:11PM

George S,

But what if Purp doesn't want to live in Galt's Gulch? Have you no sympathy, man!

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:54PM

There was a study done, Years ago.

It determined that, if you took all of the money away from everybody, and then gave everybody the same amount of Money, to start over with.

I think it was a Million Dollars.

In three years, the Rich would, once again, be Rich, and the Poor would, once again, be Poor.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 6:23PM

It's a theory, not a study. The amount of time cited varies, and it's usually just "the wealth of the world" that's evenly distributed to start.

I find three years hard to believe. Those who say 20 years to 50 years are more believable. The point is that the forces that distribute wealth as it is currently distributed cannot be significantly overcome, and that maximization of wealth is a better goal.

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 9:34AM

Rich and Poor are relative terms. I would say, 6 months and a substantial percentage of people would have lost all the money given to them, and become relatively poor. And a substantial percentage of the people would have regained some of the wealth taken from them... And therefore, would become relatively wealthy. And I believe this would hapeen no matter what laws or form of government could or would be imposed on the people.

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 12:11PM

I guess the 47% of those Americans who now don't pay any income taxes will agree with you.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 12:48PM

It is the Left which creates a system in which rewards come from government, not the self, and the Left which is responsible for the corruption of government that inevitably results.

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 1:02PM

Obamaboy purpie
When you say that the system "rewards" those with "special acess, favors, and tax breaks," you are describing the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens and their ilk who feast at the government table living off the taxpayers. Since you are part of this parasitic class, you do not know the producers who work to pay the taxes for your heroes to sponge off. Therefore you actually believe the financial sucess is due to "access/favors/tax breaks" and not to individual hard work, sacrifice, and intelligence.

You believe in the Obama fantasy that " you did not build that business."

Your comment describes how Michelle got her raise from $100,000 to $350,000 per year courtesy of the Obama earmark of one million dolllars, and how Hillary made $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures, as examples of "special access and favors."

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 1:48PM

Well since Romney's success comes in large part from Bill Bain GIVING him Bain Capital as a favor to George Romney, I'd say that's quite a leg up, wouldn't you? Like the Texas Rangers giving GW Bush a job as a favor to Papa Bush...
Since I am not part of the parasitic class I can clearly that both sides indulge in the practice. But, Obama has roots to remember what it is like to be on the bottom - Romney and Bush do not. And it shows.
You can stop repeating the sliced and diced out of context " you did not build that business." - Obama did NOT say that, and you know it. Or maybe you're stupid, ignorant or just plain evil?

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 2:00PM

Purpie is upset.

But you still refuse to answer the questions because you can't answer them.

Where is your evidence that Bain was given as a favor? Mitt's ability and work had nothing to do with his financial success?

Where is your evidence that the Texas Rangers were given as a favor?

The problem, Purpie, is that you believe things are given as favors because that is how your parasitic class operates. You really do not know anyoney who made it on ability and you do not understand it. You know only favors, access, and affirmative action.

Obama did say it, moron. And the voters have heard it.

Romney will win by a landslide.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 2:02PM

You're a fool, suggesting that Obama having "experienced" poverty relative to Romney is a significant factor. Obama's "experience" has not prevented him from being completely wrong about the causes of our problems and proposing solutions that make them worse. Romney's experience, meanwhile, HAS enabled him to see many of the problems with our economy, and to know how to eliminate them.

And Obama DID say that business owners do not deserve as much credit as they receive for building their businesses. That is the sum of his entire speech in Roanoke. It is YOU who demand that we ignore all context outside the "roads and bridges" sentence. Once again you are a liberal who thinks he has out-thought conservatives when in fact you have only out-thought your straw men.

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 3:09PM

Purp, I was not trying to distract from the issue. I was hoping add to peoples sources of information. The book isnt written from a political standpoint and its very interesting.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:55PM

He doesn't care.

lost| 7.31.12 @ 5:04PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/be.....pays-what/

Thom| 7.31.12 @ 5:25PM

“ Income inequality is real, and the system rewards those at the top with special access, favors and tax breaks.” – Ignorance on parade.

Which is it Purp, you want Doctors to make what Garbage truck drivers do or the other way around?

Your lord and savior King Obama has an imputed income of over a billion dollar a year yet pays taxes only on a few hundred thousand. It takes a net worth over a billion a year to generate the income to keep a 747 flying. Any idea what the White House and its personal staff would cost a private person to “own” and keep up? How about all that security detail and 14,000 lb armored limousine? His T time alone cost more than my annual salary. 20 years ago the average cost to the taxpayers was just short of $30,000 for each person on welfare yet those people are considered “poor” and sales tax on money they spend given to them for nothing is their largest “tax”. Can you explain how Billy Clinton went from bragging about only making “35,000” as a “poor” Arkansas governor in 1992 to over a net worth of 100 million today? Your two standard bearers here have and are getting filthy rich off of “special access, favors and tax breaks” right before your eyes and you spread them wide for them every chance you get yet dump on someone that actually made his money through hard work, smart investing and paying taxes all along the way. You might try it sometime rather than flapping your lips all day long.

Petronius| 7.31.12 @ 11:41AM

Inequality is a Given in a Free society. The other is Risk. Accept them or move to North Korea.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 12:32PM

Inequality is a good thing. The cream always rises to the top. If the left had its way, we would all get C's in school. There, now we solved all of our problems!

It must truly suck to live a life of constant envy and resentment.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:55PM

Imagine a society with total equality. How would it look?

Would we all have equal incomes? Well, then those who have crappy jobs (garbage men, for instance) would be jealous of those who have fun jobs (CEO, etc).

Would we fix that by eliminating crappy jobs (and fun jobs)? Impossible - someone needs to pick up the garbage!

Maybe we could have a rotation. You be the garbage man this week, the CEO next week, then the brain surgeon, then the accountant, and then the nuclear engineer. Does anyone see any problem with having the same person do all of those jobs? Methinks he might not do all of them very well.

Even if ability were magically equalized, education and experience are needed for a wide variety of specialized jobs, and no one person can have the qualifications for every job in the modern world. It's the Left's "people depend on other people" mantra, except instead of justifying redistribution beyond the normal payment for jobs, now it's making liberal idealism look bad. Oops!

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:55PM

So if we can't all do every job, then someone must have the crappy job, and someone else will get the fun job, and mostly we'll be stuck that way. How do we determine who does what? Here's where liberal "equality" gets fun.

In reality, the best jobs go to the most qualified. In liberal utopia, though, we're all equally capable. So people would have to get selected to be trained and educated for the best jobs by RANDOM CHANCE. How do you think the garbage man will feel, living out his life sorting through trash, knowing that he's not a CEO or doctor or fashion model or professional athlete or whatever not because of any failure of his, but because of a lottery administered by the government? Can you say "civil unrest?"

Liberal utopia looks like a disaster!

Inequality is ESSENTIAL in an interdependent society. It's the only source of legitimacy for the disparity in roles that we must have.

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 3:22PM

I wouldnt say that the best jobs go to the most qualified. Ive met enough investment bankers that were basically a nice smile with a fancy suit and they knew some lingo. That doesnt mean they shouldnt be investment bankers, its just means life is unfair and thats how it is.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 1:50PM

Not this much inequality. Every time this has happened, we revolt against it (figuratively) and replace the system with fairness.
You're fighting a losing battle and your side is dwindling fast.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 1:57PM

And you, Purp, will always win your battles provided you continue to fight only against straw men. Again, it is YOUR SIDE that creates (and profits from) inequality, in addition to misstating its causes and nature.

Furthermore, "equality" and "fairness" are often opposites (always opposites when a liberal is talking), and today's inequality is small compared to that of historical societies, even those that have not seen fit to revolt.

In short, everything you said was wrong.

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 3:26PM

Im not arguing that there isnt inequality, but how do you go about making things "fair" without creating another set of loopholes for people to exploit? Leave the rich alone to take care of themselves...give regular folks a way to save money that actually has a rate of return thats greater than the true rate of inflation....

JD| 7.31.12 @ 3:55PM

"Give" regular folks...

Who is to do this "giving"? You're not merely requesting a way to "save". You're requesting a way to INCREASE wealth without doing anything. Presumably you want it to be risk-free, as well?

THKrupp| 8.1.12 @ 10:26AM

Im talking about interest rates being kept artificially low. There is no incentive to save money at all right now. Im being paid nothing at all for my savings which the bank uses for almost nothing. We will never get out of the hole we are in until interest rates go up. Yes it would be painful at first but in the long run that is the regular person's way to increase their wealth as well as provide a cushion against economic downturns. The interest rates as they are now are robbery.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 4:32PM

The world is not fair. Never has been, never will be as long as humans inhabit it. The problem with the left is they never get it. They want someone to make it fair instead of them taking a honest look at themselves and their situation and doing what is in their power to change it. By that I mean improve yourself and your situation. Stop looking for the easy way out of big brother goverment making all your daily decisions for you.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 4:51PM

Perfection is not achievable, but that doesn't mean that the degree to which the world is fair cannot be influenced by policies. We can make the world more or less fair than it currently is. Unfortunately, the Left seems hell-bent on further divorcing outcomes from merits.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:57PM

Jesus said - "The Poor will always be among us."

Nuff said.

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 10:20AM

Purp, you say 'this much' like there is a defined amount acceptable, and above that line we need to do something about it. Just curious, where do you draw the line? How many dollors more than a poor person should a rich person be allowed to have? Would you express it in relative terms, say a percentage of GDP? How do you allow for inflation and the shrinking dollar in your equation?

David| 7.31.12 @ 11:48AM

Anyone who thinks that talk radio, conservative publications like this one, and Fox News reach the majority of voters is fooling himself.

As I have said before, the highest rated Fox show is O'Reilly (who is a wishy washy moderate) and he has 3 million nightly viewers. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and CNN have about 25 million nightly viewers.

Most people, especially older folks (who do go vote) do not get their info from alternate new sources such as ones on the Internet. They get it from MSM.

Bam Bam should be behind 80 to 20% right now, with only the 20% who identify themselves as liberal supporting him. The BS put out by the MSM keep him in the running.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 12:37PM

How true. If, acc. to Gallop, 20% of the voters are libs and 40% are conservatives, how do libs win any elections? With the help of the media. In fact their help is so enormous, the libs win nearly 50% of the time.

If the media were instead on the side of the conservatives, we would win every election every single time. Imagine that.

PolishKnight| 7.31.12 @ 1:47PM

I can explain!

Because most Democrat voters are not "liberal" or have any real ideology aside from selfishness: racial preference groups, unwed mothers, government bureaucrats, welfare recipients comprise a majority of their electorate now.

Marxism was sold based upon the premise that they were going to tear down society to make a noble Soviet state but even the former USSR seems a step up compared to the third world mess that leftists are creating in the USA and Western Europe. There are few white male leftists around anymore. Purp is a cheerleader for his own destruction.

Imhotep! Imhotep! Imhotep!

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 1:40PM

Hmmmm, I'd be interested in seeing the actual numbers. But with Rush's Talk Radio audience alone at 20 million daily (according to Rush though), I'm not so sure you are correct.
I submit the reason Obama is where has a lot to do with people realizing this is NOT a normal recession by far and that is baked into the discussion. Add to that the dislike and distrust of Mitt the Twit. He was a moderate before he was a liberal before he was a "Severe" Conservative. He has been for universal healthcare, before he was against it (RomneyCare). He was pro-gay before he wasn't. He was pro-abortion before he wasn't. He was for leaving Afghanistan before he wasn't.
Who knows what RomBot believes? But he should be far, far ahead, and he is not. Interesting he can't make the sale. Maybe he should release his tax returns to engender trust?

PolishKnight| 7.31.12 @ 1:57PM

Purp, I want to compliment, and thank you, for being here. You provide us with the perspective of a typical leftist and this is very useful. It saves us the trouble of researching or polling leftists to know what they're thinking.

Your attack of Romney sounds like something meant to disenchant his base rather than attack his actual credibility with general voters. This implies that you're worried that he has a decent chance of winning.

Indeed, one thing that worries you may be that people are realizing that Obama is not The One with the Nobel prize to get us out of this mess but rather drag us through another 4 years of super recession, deeper into the hole, with the promise that all will be blamed on GW Bush. This is NOT going to make people, including his own supporters, feel good about going out to vote for him, eh? So you need to try to keep Romney voters, especially people who like Poles saying how great he is, at home. Good luck with that! Tee hee!

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 10:58AM

One small correction, Romney HAS released his tax records. He has released 2008, 20010, and has said he will release 2011 when it is ready. Also Romney has said he was not pro abortion, but he promised the people of Massachusetts he would not block the legalization of abortion in Massachusetts, because he believed the majority of people in Massachusetts wanted legal abortions. And he kept his promise. Also, keep in mind RomneyCare was a state program, and as he authored it, fully within the scope of powers given to the states by the Constitution. Even with a personal mandate, which, correct me if I am wrong, I believe was added by the Democrat controlled Massachusetts congress. (I know that the bill was substantially changed before it passed, but I haven't found a clear, layman's terms description of how or what was changed.)

Romney won Massachusetts as a Republican, despite the fact that Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation. He did this by understanding what Massachusetts residents wanted (legal abortion, universal healthcare) and he balanced that with a clear mandate of what Massachusetts needed (fiscal responsibility, robust economy). Contrast Massachusetts today with California today, and you can quibble all you want about details, but he did land a remarkable achievement in these areas. Massachusetts was headed down a very rocky road, and Romney turned that around and put Mass on the fast track to prosperity. I want that for the nation.

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 11:07AM

That should be 2010, not 20010.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 11:53AM

As USUAL, Sowell shows his "swinish" colors , in comparing Nazi methods to the current administration.

HAVE YOU NO SHAME , WHAT-SO EVER. MR. SOWELL?? ( I sorta recall that it was a REPUBLICAN administration that OUT-RIGHT LIED to the American people, in the not so distant past--anyone remember Watergate...??

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 12:00PM

Why yes, I remeber that. I also remember...

"I did not have sex with that girl."

Fast & Furious

The refusal of the DOJ to investigate The New Black Panther voter intimidation

Obama blaming Bush for spending too much before he himself spent even more.

Here is a nice list timeline list of some of Obama's lies if your really interested.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 1:44PM

Bush lied when he said "If anyone is found to be connected to the Valerie Plame leak, they will be fired" - Guess what? Nothing. Even gave the jerk Scooter a pardon.

PolishKnight| 7.31.12 @ 4:28PM

Er, Purp, perhaps you ought to watch Foxnews for fair, balanced, and TRUTHFUL coverage. Scooter was never pardoned. In addition, he was never found to be connected to the leak but rather sentenced for supposedly "lying" to FBI officials by not revealing to them that he had heard about Plame's employment FROM A JOURNALIST. So in other words, he was accused of lying about something that was not a relevant to the leak in the first place.

In the meantime, Clinton lied to grand juries so often that tapes of his deposition and testimony are used to train interrogators. During the Clinton administration, his head counsel was found dead in a Washington DC park with little blood around the body and papers tampered with in his office. His commerce secretary about to be indicted for bribery died in a plane accident on a modern jet which supposedly went "off course" despite following a radio beacon taking the life of not only Ron Brown, but hundreds of other innocent people.

Then you guys accuse us of being sleazebags. Nice projection game there.

Bob K| 7.31.12 @ 7:13PM

He didn't pardon him. He commuted his prison term. The fine and conviction remain.

He didn't get any money from Libby either like the Clinton's got for the pardons they issued to their political contributors.

PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 9:40AM

Libby deserved a pardon but much like the recent SC healthcare decision, perhaps we should draw a lesson from this: Obama and Clinton's minions have a way of avoiding such slip ups to give prosecutors a rabbit hole to go exploring: They simply refuse to speak to investigators or provide documents even when they have nothing to hide. Not only does this help them to avoid being charged with "lying" (not that these charges stick since like with Fast and Furious the leftist media will cover them up) but rather it helps drain energy from their opponents searching through the haystack for the needle.

I'm reminded of the security policy: encrypt EVERYTHING. You don't just encrypt your session with your bank when you type in your password and get your personal information. They encrypt EVERYTHING if they're smart. This makes it more difficult for hackers to crack the code.

When speaking to the FBI and investigators, counsel should ALWAYS be present and if they feel uncomfortable with a question even in the slightest, exercise the 5th and close down the interview. It's good advice for anyone, actually.

JD| 7.31.12 @ 12:40PM

A "lie" is a deliberate misstatement of truth. Being wrong, in the way of an honest mistake, is not a lie. No liberal who's forced to defend his words in a reelection campaign has ever claimed that Bush lied, because such a claim is indefensible - there is no evidence that Bush deliberately made an untrue claim. There was bad intelligence, but it was honest bad intelligence. A mistake, not a lie.

The only liberals claiming "Bush lied" are the ones who can immediately disappear into the shadows and not have to defend their claims.

As for Sowell's comparison, it is accurate. Liberals like Pelleas are hypocrites - there is no limit to the degree of evil of which they accuse conservatives, yet when they face strong accusations, they act as though the accusation is so offensive that they need not respond.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 2:03PM

Remember Shrub's "instance" about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction", in Saddam's Iraq??

... did they ever discover--EVEN ONE???--AND YET, THAT WAS HIS EXCUSE for getting the Country involved in that tragic mistake---WAS THAT NOT A LIE, on HIS part..?

JD| 7.31.12 @ 2:12PM

Bush believed it. The information came from intel that he had no reason to disbelieve. You completely ignored my explanation of the difference between being wrong and lying.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 4:32PM

Bush KNEW he was lying, as he kept repeating it, even after reliable information indicated that it was all a myth..

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:10PM

How often did he repeat it after the ALLEGED wrongness of the statement become known?

They claim G.W. Bush was dumb, but I bet he's not dumb enough to continue repeating a statement that he knows will be politically costly to him.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 2:46PM

And I guess the collaborating info from foreign intellgince agencies was lying as well. Not to mention all the Democrats who voted in favor of the war. And I guess the Dems on the Senate intelligence committee lied too.

You graps of clandestine intelligence and its reliability is staggering.

JP| 7.31.12 @ 3:23PM

Funny how a majority of the Senate and House Dems believed the same intel Bush got from the CIA and NSA.

Butch| 7.31.12 @ 5:18PM

In 2003, the military in Iraq discovered 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium, just as British intelligence told Bush. The find was not disclosed in the name of national security until June, 2008. By the way, Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, had concluded that Sadaam was NOT trying to accumulate yellowcake. As you probably know, some chemical weapons were found.

Bush had good reason to believe that Sadaam was attempting to accumulate WMD, and in fact, he had begun doing so, and he had already used chemical weapons againt the Kurds. He was just not as far along as US and British intelligence suspected.

So . . . take your ALL CAPS and shove 'em up your keister. You're going to believe what you want to believe, like all leftists, and facts to the contrary be damned.

jmulcahy1| 7.31.12 @ 11:49PM

Please Google "Helabja." The Kurds know Saddam had WMDs, he used them on the Kurdish people.

fmm| 7.31.12 @ 11:57AM

The ironic thing is that people don't seem to recognize that the true enduring special class are the politicians, much to their liking.

RJ| 7.31.12 @ 12:04PM

The statists do use many of the same methods, but fortunately, no one has yet been able to match Hitler's ability in exploiting others. Here are some of Hitler's views from Mein Kampf, as referenced on pages 69-70 of Alan Bullock's "Hitler: A Study of Tyranny":

“Since the masses have only a poor acquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudes are implanted." … “Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open the door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a determined will, backed up by power where necessary.”

“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. … “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility. … It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. The grossly impudent lie always leave traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down.”

Thom| 7.31.12 @ 5:44PM

"For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years."

The same edge-u-kate-did morons that continuously push the big rich/poor lie can't admit that with the top 3% paying over 50% of the tax burden the bulk of the revenue shortfall the Federal government is suffering from over 4 years now is coming from a lack of earnings from these same people. The taxes paid by the unemployed and underemployed over the nominal 5% rate are a tiny fraction of the revenue shortfall. To compound the morons' lies even more they can't grasp that when people with money to invest can't make any money in the stock market after their marginal tax rate net they invest in low yield but safe tax free government bonds that support the deficit spending by that same government. It is more than just a "big lie", it is a conspiracy to deceive on a mass scale and profit from it.

Comrade Purps and alike can’t handle the truth of life and their only solution is to burn it all done to sooth their envy pain.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:08PM

So if the "top 1%" are taxed more on their income, even if the tax rate is 100%, how far will the revenues from that go to pay the costs of the U.S. government?

Thom| 7.31.12 @ 6:58PM

If you take it all, 141 days more or less. That only works the first year however..... after that the other 97% have to come up with the shortfall....

Petronius| 7.31.12 @ 6:14PM

Even telling the Purps and it's ilk they can't pay bills with emotional vindication won't cut through their desire for schadenfreude. He will die happy if he can ruin the life of anyone better than him. Destruction validates the ignorant, indolent, incompetent, infantile goths suffering from binkie withdrawal.

Jerome from Layton| 8.7.12 @ 1:45AM

The current crop of social democrats are avidly following the suggestions of Joe Geobbels (Minister of Propaganda) and Malenkov (AGITPROP under Stalin) who both said (slightly paraphrased) the a Lie, repeated often enough, would become the Truth. For example, one of our Big Government lies is that mass transit is the wave of the future. After a while, it turns out that the only way to get around is on mass transit because the same group of people make the private auto unusable (no parking, no "snout houses" in Portland, OR, outrageous EPA demands, etc.). So, after a while, the only way to get around is via the transit authority and the initial lie is now the truth.

Griff| 8.14.12 @ 9:17PM

You dufus's are are all wealthy aren't you. You know they say that figures don't lie but liars figure. And that's EXACTLY what this horsesh#t article definitively proves. Nice try, however I notice that NOWHERE in this Mandela lookin' fool's spiel does he ONCE define what he considers 'Income".

Bottom line...nobodies buyin' it,,,you can bull$#it, you can twist, lie, connive, distort, lie again, repeat repeat repeat...ad nauseum, but it makes NO DIFFERNCE...WHATSOEVER!

One simple fact. Your guy Rmoney...is LOSING. there is a very simple reason for this, he (like you) are all about taking government money away from poor and working people and giving it to wealthy people like YOU.

It really takes a lot to get the "real" majority up on their heels in this country, But let me be the first to congratulate you. You stupid greedy XXXX's have actually done it. You're actually managed to pi$$ off:

Gays
Women
Minorities
Senior Citizens
Unions
Veterans
Teachers
Firefighters
Policemen
Students

and just about any other group or demographic I could possibly think of. I've never seen ANY political campaign that was so blatantly "Anti" American people, "Pro" wealth and privilege in my entire life (and I'm a Baby boomer).

You have nothing...other than base greed, and a complete lack of ethics or morality, and you will lose, badly.

Write THAT in your snooty bathroom rag...

Incidentally, It's Rmoney and HIS ilk who are running the propaganda, yeah...we know that too.

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|91 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|54 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|50 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|10 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|12 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|25 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|12 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer | 11:29AM

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky | 11:11AM

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?