Ripper's Majic Bus

Malkin certainly called it right yesterday...

Video: Beck, Michelle Malkin go toe to toe over Massa interview
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/v ... interview/

Beck interviewed a very different character than the one on the radio this weekend.
He'd been reached, or he did the political calculation and changed his tone.

Malkin? I called it before she did!

Checking the web, I see criticism that "Beck didn't have good questions ready" or issues regarding his interview skills because he wasn't asking probing questions to pin Massa.
Beck made a critical mistake in starting the interview under the impression that Massa as NOT a hostile witness. He went into it anticipating that he'd be a whistle blower, volunteering information.

Big mistake.

Maybe Massa's performance tonight will prevent Obama from releasing those text messages to the press.

Glen usually does his homework better than this, and in his argument with Michelle Malkin, he made it appear that he had.

It might be a really important lesson for him. Just because you want something to fit the narrative you are creating doesn't mean that it will or it should be used. Massa was a big mistake, at least his ego isn't large enough that he couldn't admit his mistake.

I like Glen, but there are a couple of things that have bothered me recently. This interview is at the top of the list.. but I also wish he wasn't so friendly with Judge Napolitano, I consider his opinions suspect. He doesn't make me feel confident, nor does he strike me as a great spokesperson for the cause.

Oh, and the hour he wasted on the Nolan Chart just annoyed me. What a load of BS, a bunch of leading questions that will make most people think they are Libertarians... that was developed by a Libertarian. I felt the test was insulting.... and not because it pegged me as Libertarian, I am and I believe most Americans are, but because it was so blatantly obvious what it was doing and Glenn just seemed a bit too smug about the whole thing.

After the argument, he really felt bad and repeatedly apologized.
He's taking an incredible amount of crap from guys on both the left and the right. For example, Levin's spite is really petty and tiresome. Limbaugh has started getting some unattributed digs in.
I tend to agree with Beck on that the problems we are facing right now are not straight political issues. We aren't going to just win in November and set things right.
And that we are really on the verge of a massive economic and social crisis, possibly on an international level. If you don't have core values in place, people will turn to unholy things when they feel desperate.


I don't think he was looking for something to fit the narrative necessarily. Some of the Republicans who are attacking him take issue with him mentioning his alcoholism, I think that's foolish. The experience, the self-reflection, the sobriety, and the embrace of a religion shaped the man. I think he saw Massa with that frame of reference. I think Massa represented himself as an ex-military man who had nothing left to loose and he was going to return to some kind of honor. He was a small guy being crushed by the Democrat machine, he didn't have the money to lawyer up and fight this. But that he would project his love of country by helping expose the corrupt forces in D.C.

Of course, he was wrong. Massa appears to have used the opportunity in a futile effort to rehabilitate his image.
There certainly appears to be more allegations out there, the txt messages are looming. Again, maybe they'll call off the dogs since Massa played nicely on Beck and Larry King.


I'm on the fence regarding him- my original reservation came because he just seemed to eager to want to ride Beck's coat tails.


I didn't like the Nolan chart either. We'd posted it here and discussed it. But I don't think it's as 'bias' as I did before.
I do think most people are more "libertarian" or traditional liberal that they are lead to believe. That's why I think most people in this country are more closely in agreement on issues than they are led to believe. When you take away the marketing and political branding, most people still naturally embrace limited government. And that commonality really needs to be the starting point in reforming this country politically. And I've seen my dot on the Nolan Chart moving further up the right of the "libertarian" diamond in the past year or so. And it's a chart that avoids the "Democrat/Republican" paradigm.

I think Republicans take issue with him because he called them out at there own party. "CPAC"

That's just one example... and the party absolutely needs to be called out and held accountable.

What has the GOP done since CPAC?
Lindsey Graham has come out with plans for "Cap and Trade" and to close Gitmo.
Solid Conservative Jim Demint has defended him.
Then the RNC pisses on it's donors with the insulting, cynical powerpoint (leaked by a Democrat).
And the party candidate in Florida, the weaselly Charlie Crist, is engaged in an ugly and absurd leak and smear campaign about Marco Rubio... (back waxes now.)
You'd think the perpetually tan, rumored closet homosexual governor would avoid such topics.

I'm actually going to see Beck in Times Square on Tuesday:



http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... 198/37475/

Ask him why he refuses to look into the Fair Tax. Just kidding well no not really. He seems to be in love with the flat tax.

He has, he's discussed it before, and he talks about it all the time.
It just has to do with convenience, realism, and the fact the Fair Tax has a lot of subsidies and a huge infrastructure necessary. It's extremely complicated and invasive.
It's more effective as a mental exercise rather than an implementable tax system.

How much did the Nokia Theater show cost you with the "union fee?"
I have tickets to the "American Revival" event later this month... Judge Nap will be there too.

I will be glad to send you a copy of both books or are you like Rush "Its a good idea but it will never happen"

My friend guessed the code for the 2 for 1 special, so we got some pretty good seats (first row, mezzanine right near the bar), so we got the $90 seats for $45 each.

You're not going to hear a long monologue or discussion on it because it's not something he doesn't think is realistic.
But I heard him mention it just last week while discussing the "cut spending by 50% and impose an 11-13% flat tax" idea. Someone on the staff suggested the fair tax instead and he commented on it again.


And that huge infrastructure is a cluster-f.
There's something positive to be said for a much simpler system that does away with all of those mechanisms of government?
It's extremely complicated and invasive.


A fair tax that simply consisted of an across the board tax on all good and services would be one thing.
But the "Fair Tax," in it's effort to expand it's appeal and broaden the support, has the welfare component that redistributes wealth to low income families (and people who don't spend any money) built into it.


I think it's an interesting idea. I like the idea of taxing consumption and not earning.
And two years ago, when I had a different understanding of the national and global economy, I was more supportive of it - PROVIDED they repealed the 16th amendment first.

Comparing it and demonstrating how much better than the current system it is just isn't adequate anymore. It's undeniable that it is. But that system is on the verge of collapse.
And I just think that the "fair tax" is too burdensome (ie. sending everyone a check every month to cover the taxes on their minimum standard of living) and that it's too much of a radical departure from what people are currently comfortable with, to effectively get into place.

Ultimately, I think either switching entirely to a flat tax on earnings or the fair tax will have the same economic benefit.

This is the part that is unworkable for me also. In addition to the complexity of sending out the check and everything involved with it, I also see a way for politicians to make the fair tax unfair. You can't leave them wiggle room like this, they will use it as a lever to expand or change how the plan works in ways you can't imagine. The flat tax is so simple they can't mess with it.

You guys do know we effectively did a two stage flat tax in 1986 right? It has only been amended 10,000 times since.
http://www.research-assistance.com/pape ... _1986.html

You also know that low income people don't pay taxes know right? So to me this is a mute point.

If you knew anything about the bill you would know that the Fair Tax can not be implemented until the repeal of the 16th amendment. It's written into the bill!!!!!!!!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:

I will be more than happy to send both of you a copy of Fair Tax answering the critics for free I will pay for the shipping. Just pm me an address and I will mail it out. Everything you guys have mentioned is adressed in the book.

Read it, not buying into the explanation. Been there, done that. Just because they addressed it doesn't mean it satisfied my concerns.

And 1986 was no flat tax. I have heard that argument before, and there was actually 4 tax rates in 1986 and it was all basically thrown out by Bush 41 in 1990. What a waste. Taxes were less complicated, but there were in no way totally simplified like they would be through a straight flat tax.

So whats to stop them from manipulating a flat tax? To me it makes more sense to tax consumption rather than income. People will just continue to get paid under the table and avoid the taxes.

I like taxing consumption better myself, I just don't like the complicated way in which certain parts of the Fair Tax have to be implemented as proposed, particularly the monthly rebate. I just don't see how that will work. And it is not like the government can't also manipulate that Fair Tax, there are plenty of sliding scales they can play with and ways to further complicate it, and they will.

I think a simpler solution would be to just not tax necessities like food and BASIC clothing (ie non-designer label high dollar items). Instead of refunding me money on things that shouldn't be taxed, just don't tax them.

Even that gets into an issue of what counts as a necessity.
What are "basic" goods. Does it have a price limit. So then we need a government official deciding how much sneakers can cost?

If you do a sales tax, tax everything, or at least all of something.
And if it's an income tax, just tax it. The federal government does not have the right to dictate or influence our behavior through it's tax policy.

If we KISS for necessities, there are already guidelines for that in the form of Foodstamps. Keep goods that you can buy under those programs untaxed.

Hey James you ever had one of those fried cherry pie's that Beck was talking about yesterday? They looked good. You think it would ship well? I would like to try one before its banned.

http://www.chipshopnyc.com/

You'll just have to get to New York.
Maybe you can find the lady who sells the bacon wrapped, deep fried hotdogs while you're there.

No, but I bet that place is MOBBED today. I passed one of the bakeries in Hoboken for a Chef on one of those cake shows last week, and the line snaked around the block at Noon.

Just got in from seeing Beck (it was a pretty long show, plus we started drinking before, and had to get a few more after).

My friend and I both thought it was ok. It was a little too high level for my taste and a bit disjointed due to some technical difficulties with the web connection. We both felt Glen kept it a bit high level, especially for people who are already fans. He was speaking to the choir, not trying to get new fans, so he should have gotten into some detail.

The question and answer period was just ok also, once again, they kept it a bit campy (I blame the guy asking the questions) and once again should have gotten a bit deeper. Very superficial.

Its all new though, and I am sure he is just going to get better at doing these live shows. There is definite potential there.