23

The New Communism: A Citizen Blows a Bundle


 

Amidst its excellent coverage of the big Wall Street bailout package, today’s NYTimes contained a full page ad that consisted of this simple caricature of Paulson, Bush, and Bernanke, portraying them as New Communists. It was accompanied by a short note saying that the ad was paid for by one Bill Perkins, of Houston Tx.

Here’s a scan I made of the caricature:


 
Filed under:

The New Communism: A Citizen Blows a Bundle

  1. I wonder if Bill was going short on some energy or financial stocks.

  2. A few weeks ago there was a similar communist cartoon parody of the Toronto Mayor and his comrades.

  3. I agree with Perkins.

    After the last few days of reading/listening about the bailout package that is about to create the People’s Republic of Wall St, all I can think of is Reagan’s nine most terrifying words:

    ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

  4. Nice — thanks. Love this:

    Perkins said he was surprised that so many Republicans are embracing the bailouts.
    “It’s amazing. It’s like finding out your best friend is gay,” Perkins said. “It’s like, ‘By the way, I’m a socialist. Didn’t you know that?’”

  5. Hey jwl:

    Antone heard from Mike Gravel on this one?

  6. Sorry, that was “anyone”.

  7. Yup, Mr. Perkins may not be totally PC (he forgot to add “not that there’s anything wrong with that!” to “It’s like finding out your best friend is gay”), but he most certainly nails it with the cartoon.

    If capitalism is no longer permitted to kill off the stupid and weak when the stupid and weak get huge, whatever “ism” we must now christen (is that term still legal?) 21st century post-capitalism will necessarily further encourage the huge to get stupid and weak. You get more of what you encourage with subsidy, and you get less of what you punish with taxation.

  8. Oh, and Andrew, kudos to Mr. Perkins for blowing his own bundle to educate his fellow citizens. I bet he didn’t even consider for one split second thumbing through the government grant directory…

  9. “You get more of what you encourage with subsidy, and you get less of what you punish with taxation”

    Sounds familiar. You been reading Dion speeches??

  10. Dion seeks to punish what our economy depends on (carbon, fossil fuels), and wants to subsidize poverty, oh, and rural voters under his Preferred Polluter Pass rebate system. Good luck with that in a few weeks, Stéphane.

  11. Right. The same but different.

    How about “change what our economy depends on and reduce poverty”.
    Or the status quo. “subsidize what our economy depends on and punish poverty”

    It’s good to have options. In a few weeks people might even realize they have them.

  12. If you think you can reduce poverty by paying more people to present themselves as poor, stay away from my taxes. For an example of how to lift substantial numbers of people from poverty and help- or use-lessness, see Reform, Clinton’s Welfare.

    Can you please explain how we are currently subsidizing fossil fuel consumption? From excise taxes to GST, there’s a nifty tax load on the stuff already. And it’s STILL more economical than so many other forms of energy. So where’s the subsidy in your fairy-tale status quo?

  13. Subsidy in consumption? You mean production.

    Austin

  14. Our economy depends on fossil fuel consumption. You said the status quo subsidizes what our economy depends on. I’m asking you where you see the subsidy of fossil fuel consumption, because I see none.

  15. Why are you boxing in your argument? There is nothing in Sisyphus’ comment about “consumption”.

    OTOH, that is what you are restricting your argument to.

    Our economy relies on both production and consumption of fossil fuels.

    Are you saying that there is no subsidy of fossil fuel production?

    Austin

  16. Austin, follow the comments: the first mention is “what our economy depends on (carbon, fossil fuels).” Our (especially AB’s, SK’s and upcoming NL’s) economy has certainly been helped by production and sale of fossil fuels, but Canada’s entire economy id indeed dependent on the stuff. Consumption of the stuff.

    If there is a subsidy in fossil fuel production, I agree wholeheartedly that there should not be. The oil companies are making enough profit with the marginal markup of a resource whose base price has skyrock– no, never mind, the economists tell us that it’s still cheaper than during the 70’s oil crisis, adjusted for inflation. Whatever.

    Private businesses should be private. Tax incomes and profits and consumption modestly enough so as not to discourage income, profit or consumption. Attack whole-hog one segment that the economy depends on and, well, buckle up everyone, the ride won’t be pleasant.

  17. The Dion Green Shift discussion is a bit of a tangent from this post about the stupidity of the government of the alleged lead country of the free and capitalist world pulling this stunt. BUt not that far. It shows that when government tries too hard to well-intentionedly butt in, the law of unintended consequences slaps back in more-than-equal and opposite direction.

  18. I am following your comments, MYL, but when you decide to insert your own caveats, be expected to be called on it.

    If there is a subsidy in fossil fuel production”…?

    You’re joking, right?

    Austin

  19. Austin, I am not a student of the quality and quantity of subsidies to the oil giants to pull out of the ground and refine. Feel free to enlighten us all with facts and figures and links, but it’s a futile effort as far as I am concerned: if I have failed to make myself clear, I am against governments siphoning tax dollars in to business subsidies, period, full stop. That absolutely includes the oil giants. But hey, go ahead and have fun with the two letters I and F if it’ll entertain you, just note all the bigger words that follow.

    And with that, I will surrender the eloquent last words to others, I am off to Z…Z…z…

  20. “He describes himself as a libertarian and an Obama supporter.”

    From the article that Navigator links to.

    I think Perkins is a bit confused. How can a libertarian support Obama, the most left-wing of Senators imaginable. If he thinks Bush is bad, wait till Obama gets his hands on the controls.

    And the NY Times seems an odd venue to get his message out. I think many of its readers probably support what is happening, Perkins would have been better served at the Wall St Journal.

    This ad also makes me think of our election laws. Citizens in the U.S. are allowed to participate in their election compared to us subjects who must sit on the sidelines while the panjandrums decide our future without any input from the people.

  21. madeyoulook – championing not evolving since 2008!

    any idea of how much the ads cost Perkins or is that in the wall st article?

  22. It’s in the WSJ article: $140 US

Sign in to comment.