There are certain terms bandied about by particular political factions that I just can’t take seriously. They get used into oblivion and either come to mean nothing, everything, or are merely jokes that mark an idiot. I’m sure some people might say as much about “bigot”, which is really a wonderful word, but it isn’t used by just or primarily one group; it gets used by everyone, albeit often incorrectly. So without further ado, here are some words and phrases that stick out to me as completely useless:
Job Creators: Oh, Republicans, you mean rich people that contribute to your campaigns but don’t really create jobs because, as you know and hate to acknowledge, the economy is driven by the consumer?
Patriarchy: Oh, feminists, you mean anything – absolutely anything – you wish to explain away and ‘blame on men’?
Blame On Men: Oh, too many men who argue with feminists, you mean any argument so inconvenient to address – including the preponderance of valid ones – that you would rather ignore it and just degrade the discussion instead?
War On Christmas: Oh, FOX Noise, you mean that fictitious thing you made up in order to fill your time between race baiting and lying?
I’m not religious, I’m spiritual: Oh, wildly immature thinker, you mean you don’t want to spend the time to think about the God question, but you’re also too lazy to commit to a religion and/or take the criticism that comes with that?
Add your own.
For the Sake of Science 
Its strange, but the rich people that contribute to Obama’s campaign get hailed as job creators by him too. Like that GE guy on his “jobs committee” or whatever it was. You know, the company that paid exactly zero taxes.
Either he’s is talking out of both of his faces or…
You act like people making lots of money every year only spend what you and I do. I have news for you. People making 500,000 bucks a year don’t spend 20,000 a year in the economy that you always point out is largely consumer driven.
Of course that phrase in an of itself is ridiculous because consumers can only buy things that producers have produced or services provided by some other party. Ignoring all of that for a moment, anyone who makes a great deal of money has got to put it somewhere, and there are few things one can do with money that doesn’t lead to some kind of economic positive outcome. The more the better.
“Just a theory.”
I’m surprised how much I agree with you.
Politicians can never be “job creators” according to Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, and “creating jobs” should never be a goal in itself – it causes people to stop progressive just to keep busy. Politicians can build walls, or remove walls, that prevent the private sector from creating jobs.
I don’t recognize the “Blame on men” phrase and a Google search failed to get exactly what it means.
I think the War on Christmas got a bad rap because, well, the right won that war. There are still jerks who get offended by “Happy Holidays,” but there was a time a few years ago when businesses would advertise “holiday trees” and it was a mark of being over-PC. People made a fuss, won the war, and now there aren’t current example to point to.
and being spiritual, not religious, is saying you’re religious and you want all the promises religion brings, but don’t want to make any sacrifices.
I can recall several conversations I’ve had with those nutty feminists where I objected to a certain point and, instead of actually addressing my objection, they said I was part of the patriarchy and using my male privilege. Most people confuse an ad hominem with an insult, but that’s a bona fide ad hom and a terrific way to stifle discussion.
anyone who makes a great deal of money has got to put it somewhere, and there are few things one can do with money that doesn’t lead to some kind of economic positive outcome.
That’s hilarious. The fact is that since the advance of trickle-down “Reaganomics”, income disparity has skyrocketed. The rich are vastly richer, the poor are much poorer, and the middle class has been facing frozen or declining wages for decades while inflation has made their investments and income that much less valuable.
The proof is in the pudding. After a while, it becomes painfully obvious to any reasonable, thinking person that the wealth is not actually trickling down. The question is, unless you’re one of those people at the top swimming in dough, why the hell would you try to convince yourself it’s gonna work out in the end? Someday it’ll start trickling down! Get real. They’re shooting you in the foot, and you’re helping them aim the gun.
What exactly do you think people do with their money? If you get a home, car, or business loan, where do you think that money comes from? Depositors, that’s where. Not just the rich obviously, but certainly there is a bigger contribution to the lending pool than from you or I.
Or if a rich person invests their money, we don’t benefit? No, no, of course not. Investments don’t do anything for expansion, research and so forth.
Or finally if they spend it, and it would be hard to say a rich person does not spend a hell of a lot more than I do over the course of a year. And as Michael says, 70% of the economy is “consumer driven”, whatever that is supposed to mean. It would follow that the biggest consumers are doing the most economic driving.
However I understand, Some people have it written into their political DNA that the rich must be evil, regardless of the circumstances, and wealth is a zero-sum game.
I forget that everything the rich do happens in a vacuum. Except for negatives.
Damn that 1% of people that pay almost 40% of all the federal income tax. While we’re at it, damn that 50% that pays near 100% of it.
1) Giving the middle class tax breaks for X amount of dollars is far more fruitful than giving the wealthy tax breaks for the same X amount of dollars. The middle class will spend more because they have money they need and/or are not accustomed to having. The wealthy, on the other hand, hardly notice. If I have $10 million, it doesn’t make a difference to me if someone gives me $5,000.
2) I remember the Republicans jumping all over Cutler last year when he said the job of the governor is not to create jobs but to create the right environment for jobs.
3) “Blame on men” may well not be the exact phrase used. “Blame everything on men”, “blame it on men”, “blame men”, or even something else which gets to the same point may be more common. But any way you slice it, I don’t take the sentiment seriously when it stands alone.
Oh yes, and “just a theory” is infuriating.
I have no idea who’s arguing that rich people are evil or that they don’t invest, but it’s not me. Golly, I wonder how banks ever get by in, I dunno, Sweden for example, where income disparity is not remotely what it is here? Maybe since there’s a vastly stronger middle class, there are lots more people who are able to put money into banks? Crazy.
I’m sorry those pesky facts pose an inconvenience for your political ideology, but the fact is that conservatives have been telling us for 30 years that the best way to increase wealth for all is through corporate tax breaks and de-regulation, and tax breaks galore for “job creators” in the top 2% or so of all earners. The wealth, we’ve been told, will “trickle down”.
Well, it’s been 30 years and the wealth hasn’t trickled down. In fact, the wealth has trickled UP pretty drastically. Everyone’s gotten poorer except for the folks at the very top who’ve been getting one break after another for the last three decades. Maybe, just maybe, trickle down economics is a bunch of fucking bullshit.
Mr. Hawkins, I didn’t notice it during the election, but I have to agree with those Republicans who said the governor shouldn’t directly create jobs, but create the right habitat for jobs to grow. Jobs themselves are busywork, its productivity that we want to increase, and if we keep our eye on it, the jobs will follow.
I understand your point about people with less money will spend more of it on consumer goods than the rich. What Nate is saying is that while rich people won’t directly spend it on consumer goods, it won’t disappear from the economy. Here’s what he was getting at:
Nate, I don’t think you really mean: “there are few things one can do with money that doesn’t lead to some kind of economic positive outcome.” You could hire mercenaries to fight one another to the death, that wouldn’t be a good expenditure of money. I think what you mean is that money doesn’t vanish from the system when you save it. You must agree that some expenditures are better for the economy then others.
Mike Whizbang, I haven’t seen you post here before, and I agree with some of your non-economic points, but your statement “the poor are much poorer, and the middle class has been facing frozen or declining wages for decades while inflation has made their investments and income that much less valuable” has no bearing on reality. I suggest you occupy a textbook, or take 25 seconds comparing these two simple lists of items a teenager could purchase with his summer job wages in 2011 http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/young-americans-luckiest-generation-in.html
I agree that the rich are getting richer than anyone else, that’s how exponential growth works, but your statements about everyone else getting poorer shows a level of ignorange usually reserved for people who send money to televangelists.
“Historic.”
Regarding the debate over wealth creation and distribution, I have to marvel at people who can sit down and use a personal computer to claim that we are materially *worse* off than we were thirty years ago.
That is essentially what I was trying to say. Of course there are things one may do with cash that are bad, and obviously there are things one can do which aren’t as effective at creating growth.
But really, the list of things a person can do with money that are actually damaging to the economy is really pretty short.
“Atheists have just as much faith as Christians; they just put their faith in ‘science’ instead.”
“If you don’t agree with me it’s because your PRIVILEGE has blinded you to the truth.”
“They’re just filing a lawsuit because they’re OFFENDED by religious displays.”
and (with very few exceptions):
“What’s all the arguing about? Issue X is CLEARLY un-Constitutional, and that’s the end of it!”
“They’re just filing a lawsuit because they’re OFFENDED by religious displays.”
I’m not sure where you are going with this one, because a number of lawsuits do make that claim. That’s not really the fault of anyone but the plaintiff if people henceforth describe the suit that way.
Really? Can you provide links that show the plaintiffs saying that?
Because I only encounter the “atheists are OFFENDED” tactic when some religious fool is trying to defend government endorsement of religion. They never acknowledge that it’s a Constitutional issue; instead, they pretend it’s about hurt feeliings.