Rum: The Other White Meat
By Johnny Roosh
As in Pork that is.
As Congress debated the historic financial rescue package on Oct. 3, the world economy was hanging in the balance. The House already had rejected Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s emergency $700 billion banking bailout plan. The Senate, hoping to get the House to relent, added $110 billion in “sweeteners” and sent the bill back.
One of those sweeteners jumped out at Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). It would permit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to pocket $192 million in federal excise taxes collected from rum-makers in those territories.
“Madam speaker, the Senate’s response to the House rejection of the Paulson plan was to add more spending. So we got tax breaks for rum,” Kaptur said from the well of the House. “You’ve got it right. R-U-M.”
This is an outrage! I rarely drink rum. If this were Brandy or Single-Malt Scotch, I would be in full support. Rum (save 151) is a waste of taxpayer dollars!
October 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I’m thinking wingnuts will be grateful for cheap booze over the next eight years.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
But will the left revolt over the price of aragula at Whole Foods?
My first drinking experience involved rum. Mixed with koolaid, and one sip is the sum total of all the rum I’ve ever drunk. So nasty, I’m against the bailout for this reason alone, 22 years later.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I’m with Roosh on this one — no Rum in my house, only Cognac n Macallan for us….
October 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Personally, I go with Glenfidditch, though Macallan is quite good, as is Tullamore (esp for a blended).. don’t much like Glenmorangie, though – tastes like peat.
JR – a serious question, if we can agree (and I hope we can) that a pure even distirbution of wealth is communism (ideal form) – and distribution by power/ability to manipulate and or control the system is perhaps Feudalism or maybe Capitalism done wrong – aren’t we, as both good neighbors, good Americans, and good Christians, seeking something in the middle? Something where, as it says in II Corinthians, “He who has little should not have too little, He who has much should not have too much”, such that those who are bright and talented benefit well, but not at the expense of the rest of us? What do we call the opposite extreme from communism? What would you call it? Thanks J, I look forward to what you have to say.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
To wit – 2 Corinthians 8:13-15
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
October 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
P, I do share with you a preference for Glenfiddich in fact I am reminded that I am out at this moment and will forsooth make a stop on the way home from the office.
As for the other point, I don’t disagree with your premise however I believe we as a society have long since passed that balancing point.
Nearly everyone feels it is fair and just to pay their fair share of the burden but already millions that earn incomes pay nothing and with the Earned Income Credit actually get a refund of taxes paid by someone else.
Decades of fiscal liberalism are now manifest in a progressive income tax system that has aleady shifted the lion’s share of the tax burden to the very top income earners.
This shift can not continue unabated without severe consequences for everyone in our economy. It is time to stop the progression if not reverse it for the good of all.
More and more of the burden is borne by fewer and fewer that actually create wealth.
Government can only tax and spend. It can not create wealth. Wealth creates jobs. Jobs generate revenue for the government.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Glenfiddich? No!!!!!
Macallan is faaaaar better. I had a taste test b/t Macallan 18 year and Glenfiddich 30 year. Macallan won hands down. Of course, after the second sip of both, my taste buds were pretty shot……
October 27th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I also take back what I said about Rum. My lovely and I frequently enjoy a well-made mojito in the summertime…..
October 27th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Penigma, if I may butt in a bit, it should be remembered that the situation of which Paul wrote is one where the church in Jerusalem was literally starving due to persecution and famine. It’s also one where the church, not the government, was the one delivering the aid.
Got a situation where I can really help people who are truly in need with my own money? Sign me up.
Got a situation where someone wants to use government money to subsidize the poor without figuring out if they can work and help themselves?
Count me out. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10 tells us that if a man will not work, neither shall he eat. Yes, it’s fully Biblical, and Godly, to let a lazy man get very hungry if he’s able to work but chooses not to.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
JR – that progressive tax structure started in 1933 – and was a reaction to the failures of the gilded age, not decades of liberalism. They were also far more confiscatory in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, than today.
Indeed, the tax on wealth above 3MM was 90% in 1960 – obviously, that’s a LOT higher than today.
Further, while the amount paid by the rich has doubled since 1981, it’s only because they make 4 times as much, meaning, the actual tax rate has been cut in half.
The point still is, there IS an extreme, and we HAVE to find equitable balance where labor is to an extent, protected against offshore slave labor, where leaders get well compensated, but both do well in the marketplace.
Failing to do so, and using nonsense ‘socialism’ rhetoric – is in large part what has lead us here today. I see that today they are talking about a bailout for automakers. That didn’t come about because of CRA or even Credit Default Swaps (or derivatives), it came about because the middle has been squeezed to the point of breaking. It must be remedied.
Finally, the Government in fact did a damned fine job running the economy during WWII – while I don’t advocate that, your premise, that it cannot ‘create’ wealth is countered by the successes seen recently in alternative energy and manufacturing jobs involved in it, moving back on shore due to progressive policies – even lost leader policies – to promote such growth. But in the end, wealth will not invest unless demand exists, and demand shrinks as pay stagnates while demand services costs (like health care) escalate. By and large, the American belief HAD been that investment should be for creating new jobs/products, and because you believe in the company. If all you want is pure profit, go the the horsetrack, learn about horses, and gamble all you like – but don’t force companies, in obscene obedience to the ‘almighty profit’ to layoff 100,000 poeple because you can get such labor for ‘free (nearly) in Ghana’. It may cost less (maybe) to buy the product (very maybe) – but who can buy it? The only winners, as we’ve seen, have been those at the top.
I still ask the question, what do we call the reverse of communism. Mitch fatuously argued that fascism is a leftist idea (utter nonsense) so if we exclude that to cater to Mitch’s Oliver Stone sensibilities – then what is the right end extreme to be called? Moreover, is it good? I think the current meltdown shows clearly it is not, and virtually every economist I know of agrees, including (belatedly) Greenspan.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I guess Rep. Kaptor forgot about that whole “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” thing.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Afaoofa – I defer to your superior knowledge and taste (or lack thereof after a couple shots :)).
Take care.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Bike – I concur – which is why I supported workfare – but we’re not talking about the poor here. We’re talking about whether it is wise or even ethical to concentrate wealth too much.
Clearly, anyone worth a tinker’s damn feels the most owed to someone who refuses to work, at best perhaps is a soup line and a cot – and maybe not even that. It’s an ethical question, if someone simply refuses to work, shall we refuse them any help? I suppose I’d say I’d give them a bowl of soup- you might not, and I wouldn’t say you were wrong – but again, that’s not the point.
Same question though to you, what is the opposite of communism?
October 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
JR, I had a reply to your comment, but for some reason it dissappaered.
I’ll consolidate it slightly.
In 1960, the tax rate on income over $3MM was 90%.
The most progressive tax structures started in the 30’s (mostly) and have been dismantled since.
In 1981, the tax rate was 70% on the highest income, today it’s 36%, while the rich pay doulbe the amount they did in 1981, it’s only because they make 4 times as much as they did in 1981. The average worker makes (when figuring in healthcare, energy, food, and education) substantially less.
This has been and is, a recipe for disaster. My question still stands, what do we call the opposite of communism, if communism is the left extreme, what is the right (and I’m not talking about police state labels, but economic theory)? My term is feudalism, what would yours be? Once defined, do you support it – I ask that question in all due respect.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
Peev, don’t you understand what this means? This is a literal statement. It is actual “economic justice”, not the false one of wealth distribution.
Remember, the hand wrote “If any not work, let them also not eat.”
Or, as Kid Rock puts it: “You get what you put in, and people get what they deserve.”
October 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Kerm- it says pretty plainly, when you are in need, they will help, when they are in need, you should help. I think I understand it fine – it is a comment that he who gathers much did not have too much – it’s a pretty clear message Kerm, and I haven’t implied you lack understanding, I’d ask you to shy away from such an implication toward me – I’m at least as versed here I suspect, and in my opinion Kid Rock has nothing at all to do with this passage, certainly not in the way you imply. Read verse 14 again – “Then there will be equality” – meaning when they help you and you them – but the passage goes on to say clearly it relates to an OLDER reference to the amount each can (and presumably should and will gather in). It is in fact a comment on justice.
Regardless – the question is simply this, do you support feudalism, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of those who can use force, power, and corruption, to gather it? The last 30 years have NOT been a vast redistribution of the rich’s assets downward, they’ve been the opposite.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Penigma, the Scripture really doesn’t tell us that someone is getting “too rich.” The last phrase of the passage you cite is about the collection of manna in the wilderness (look at your cross references). I don’t believe God condemns too much wealth. It rather condemns the abuse of it.
And as long as the rich operate under the same laws as the poor, we don’t get abusive wealth. We get creative wealth.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
OK Peev, let’s play the What Jesus Said Game.
Matthew 13:12
“Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him”
Matthew 25:29
“For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”
Mark 4:25
“Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”
Luke 8:18
“Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him.”
Luke 19:26
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
So as we can plainly see, by a literal interpretation of Scripture, Jesus was most certainly not an advocate of wealth redistribution in the Marxist/Obama mold.
Argue with Jesus, Peev.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
He was an advocate of wealth redistribution in the Bush/McCain mold: from the poor to the rich.
When wingnuts watch Robin Hood, they root for the Sheriff of Nottingham.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:51 am
What a country! …and what a blast!
I post a comic relief item on Rum and a discussion of political systems and the Bible ensues.
Awesome!
…continue, please.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I’m praying to Jesus(TM) against you, JRoosh.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I’m already on his team.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:32 am
You got a note in your locker to go see the manager, JRoosh. I think you’ve been released.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
AC, perhaps you can find a Biblical example of someone who came about their wealth honestly, but is condemned for his wealth? The closest you’ll find is the rich young man of Luke 18:18-23, and that doesn’t say how he became wealthy, nor does it suggest government ought to be the means by which wealth is redistributed.
Keep in mind here that Solomon was not condemned for his wealth, and the tax collectors did not come about their wealth by honest means.
Sorry, Scripture simply does not support the idea that government ought to prevent someone from becoming too wealthy, if he does it by honest means. Nor does it support the idea that government ought to be part of the process of “sharing.” In fact, those who understand the history of the late Roman empire can point out exactly why this is a horrendously bad idea.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Scripture does support the idea that a dude can be born to a virgin, die, then come back to life three days later. Also, considering that the government of the time nailed the dude up on a cross and fed his pals to lions, it’s not so surprising that his early followers were on the “small government” end of things.
Fortunately we no longer crucify trouble-makers in the US of A. Instead they have blogs.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
AC, if you want the Almighty’s favor, it helps not to mock Him. Just a hint.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I kid cause I love, Bike Butthead.
Praying for your hemorrhoids to swell up right….now.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
If you’re swelling and bleeding, your prayer has been answered.