Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Heritage Foundation used to be a respected think tank, where conservative PhD researchers provided policy advice backed by sound scientific data. Then former MBA and tea party hero Jim DeMint took over   ( salon.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Ph.D., Jim DeMint, political hacks, think tanks, leveraged buyouts, MBA  
•       •       •

2668 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 4:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-27 01:04:08 PM  
The Heritage Foundation was never a respected think-tank.  They were conservative corporate shills.  They were the people Big Tobacco asked to convince the American public that nicotine wasn't addictive and cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer.  They're now a big source of misinformation about global warming.  So if Jim DeMint is responsible for them getting the public scorn they deserve, thank you Jimbo.
 
2013-11-27 01:47:16 PM  
Heritage Foundation used to be a respected

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-27 02:21:28 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-11-27 02:49:11 PM  
That's "former MBA and tea party hero and The Family point man" Jim DeMint to you, Subby.
 
2013-11-27 04:06:51 PM  
One, two, three, and we're done
 
2013-11-27 04:08:35 PM  
I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?
 
2013-11-27 04:09:16 PM  
Poor thread never stood a chance.
 
2013-11-27 04:10:21 PM  
Heritage Foundation used to be a respected Think-tank

Lol, no
 
2013-11-27 04:10:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?


Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?
 
2013-11-27 04:12:56 PM  

whidbey: Heritage Foundation used to be a respected Think-tank

Lol, no


 
2013-11-27 04:13:03 PM  
Heritage Foundation used to be a respected Think-tank

stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-11-27 04:13:13 PM  
Anti-intellectualism is killing a movement founded by disaffected intellectuals. The circle of derp is almost complete.
 
2013-11-27 04:14:53 PM  
They put two 31 year olds in charge of that much money and of that organization...?  That's just a dumb idea to start with.
 
2013-11-27 04:15:59 PM  
Is this thread not a repeat of the one we had for the article referenced in the article?
 
2013-11-27 04:16:47 PM  
How does one become a former MBA? Did his alma mater revoke his degree?
 
2013-11-27 04:17:05 PM  
Well... let's say that it was at least respected by the choir it preached to, including most Republicans in Congress. Now? Not so much. Personally, I can't recall anyone affiliated with the Heritage Foundation tell the truth about anything. It's a bit of long read, but quite interesting, I thought. I had never heard of this Needham character before (or Heritage Action for that matter) and he appears to be a critical force in the GOP's recently accelerated suicide spiral. The story provides a lot of background on how that has come to pass.
 
2013-11-27 04:17:12 PM  

meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?


Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income
 
2013-11-27 04:19:48 PM  

MFAWG: Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth.


When? Have we ever actually been near anything where these effects come into play?
 
2013-11-27 04:21:36 PM  

MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income


So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?
 
2013-11-27 04:23:38 PM  

MFAWG: Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income


i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-27 04:25:28 PM  

whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?


In before "destroyed Europe."
 
2013-11-27 04:26:31 PM  

meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?


Heritage Foundation did a good job of packaging the Kool-Aid in a way that it didn't seem like partisan cant from the mid 80's to the mid 90's.  They were always partisan shills but they packaged themselves better then.
 
2013-11-27 04:27:10 PM  

whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?


You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Even then 90 pct was too high, something Kennedy recognized.
 
2013-11-27 04:28:50 PM  

MFAWG: whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?

You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Even then 90 pct was too high, something Kennedy recognized.


Um, no, I meant the booming economically solvent 1950s where many Americans worked decent wage jobs. Where the tax rate was much higher than now.

Just shooting holes in your bullshiat contention, MFAWG.
 
2013-11-27 04:29:51 PM  

MFAWG: whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?

You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Even then 90 pct was too high, something Kennedy recognized.


Woot!  Made it!
 
2013-11-27 04:35:49 PM  
FTAYour think tank just had to be destroyed in order to find what was of real value, which turned out to be, I guess, your email list.

And I bet the irony of the situation is entirely lost on the people of the Heritage Foundation.
 
2013-11-27 04:42:48 PM  

Muta: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Heritage Foundation did a good job of packaging the Kool-Aid in a way that it didn't seem like partisan cant from the mid 80's to the mid 90's.  They were always partisan shills but they packaged themselves better then.


There's also the fact that while we can now look back over the decades and see the failure of supply side economics at the time they were charting new territory. In the 60's and 70's Democrats held strong majorities in Congress and the Nixon scandal was still fresh. Guys like the Heritage Foundation created a theory that was appealing and seemed like a reasonable alternative way forward. It sounded good enough to help Reagan's popularity and even take the Senate for a while. That takes smarts even if the theory they helped create turned out to be wrong.

So yeah, they were respected. The fact they are still clinging to a failed ideology just makes them less and less respectable as time goes on.
 
2013-11-27 04:44:58 PM  
Done in one.  While it might be helpful as a liberals to puff up Heritage's respectability and credibility before this latest wave of crazy it is just not factually accurate.  They have always been hacks who reverse-engineer a tortured semblance of logic and statistical support for right-wing policies.
 
2013-11-27 04:45:28 PM  

whidbey: MFAWG: whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?

You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Even then 90 pct was too high, something Kennedy recognized.

Um, no, I meant the booming economically solvent 1950s where many Americans worked decent wage jobs. Where the tax rate was much higher than now.

Just shooting holes in your bullshiat contention, MFAWG.


I like how we're talking about the same thing, but I'm the one who's full of shiat.

Doomed to repeat the past for no other reason than the all or nothing state of political discourse in this country, and Liebruls are becoming as intellectually inflexible as the most rabid Teatard
 
2013-11-27 04:46:23 PM  

mrdano: The Heritage Foundation was never a respected think-tank.  They were conservative corporate shills.  They were the people Big Tobacco asked to convince the American public that nicotine wasn't addictive and cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer.  They're now a big source of misinformation about global warming.  So if Jim DeMint is responsible for them getting the public scorn they deserve, thank you Jimbo.


This!
 
2013-11-27 04:46:55 PM  
I, for one, am grateful for the work that Heritage has done the past year. I hope they continue to take a principalled stand and fight for their beliefs just as they have done so far. I applaud DeMint and that other jerkwad

Hillary '16!
 
2013-11-27 04:47:58 PM  

meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?


Granted, I couldn't even vote till '86 so I was fairly young and still had a lot to learn, but even I could tell back then that supply-side trickle down economics was a bunch of bullshiat which merely functioned to make the rich richer.  How is it that so many people bought into this crap?
 
2013-11-27 04:49:28 PM  

mrdano: The Heritage Foundation was never a respected think-tank.


As someone who's both conservative in the actual meaning of the word and somewhat right-leaning... this.  Even my more extremist colleagues don't really pretend that Heritage is really credible as an impartial source.
 
2013-11-27 04:50:00 PM  
Your think tank just had to be destroyed in order to find what was of real value, which turned out to be, I guess, your email list.

Long journey to get to that zinger, but well worth it.
 
2013-11-27 04:53:42 PM  
I guess we could talk about other stuff.

Stuffing. In or out of the turkey?

/both
//obviously
 
2013-11-27 04:55:09 PM  
In the old days it took a Ph.D. and skill to create fake research and position papers.  You had to understand statistics and how to fraudulently manipulate them, how to setup a study so it would give you the results you needed.  The results looked like actual scholarly research and gave the Ph.Ds working there a fig leaf of respectability.

Now, with the MBAs in charge they don't bother with the fake research, they just concentrate on the outright lies, like "death panels".  It costs a lot less in staff since this new approach doesn't require a Ph.D., and frankly anyone who reads anything from Heritage isn't really looking at substance anyway.
 
2013-11-27 04:55:43 PM  

jayhawk88: Your think tank just had to be destroyed in order to find what was of real value, which turned out to be, I guess, your email list.

Long journey to get to that zinger, but well worth it.


Schumpeter would approve.
 
2013-11-27 04:56:29 PM  

MFAWG: I like how we're talking about the same thing, but I'm the one who's full of shiat.


You are. I gave you a credible example which disproved your argument.

The honorable thing to do is admit your point is disinformation.
 
2013-11-27 04:58:53 PM  

Jim_Callahan: mrdano: The Heritage Foundation was never a respected think-tank.

As someone who's both conservative in the actual meaning of the word and somewhat right-leaning... this.  Even my more extremist colleagues don't really pretend that Heritage is really credible as an impartial source.


B... but they made Heri-clin-bamnycare!
 
2013-11-27 05:00:29 PM  

MFAWG: whidbey: MFAWG: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Here's the thing: they proved their point and won the argument. Excessive taxation at the investor and top levels does stifle growth. The problem is that the mouthbreathers think anything above zero is excessive, when it's really somewhere just below 30 pct on income

So, during the 1950s, when we had a much higher tax rate, the US economy was stagnant?

You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Even then 90 pct was too high, something Kennedy recognized.


The corporate tax rate is at a high right now. But just like the fabled 90% top tax bracket, nobody farking pays it.

That and what you said.
 
2013-11-27 05:04:37 PM  

Pincy: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Granted, I couldn't even vote till '86 so I was fairly young and still had a lot to learn, but even I could tell back then that supply-side trickle down economics was a bunch of bullshiat which merely functioned to make the rich richer.  How is it that so many people bought into this crap?


Economically illiterate and/ or innumerate. There's a lot of it about. We have a sizable industry called "gaming", (aka gambling) in this country which is solely viable because of the existence of that demographic.
 
2013-11-27 05:04:46 PM  
Am I the only one here who had never heard of this Michael Needham fellow? Seems to have been pretty important in the lead-up to the shutdown and all the other futile attempts to defund Obamacare.
 
2013-11-27 05:06:11 PM  
Nothing to add so here's an actual respected heritage foundation.

c590298.r98.cf2.rackcdn.com
 
2013-11-27 05:08:57 PM  

MFAWG: You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?


Do you know how I know you have no idea about history?
 
2013-11-27 05:10:13 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Pincy: meat0918: Mrtraveler01: I know I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but at what point in time was the Heritage Foundation "respected"?

Mid 80s when people were drinking the trickle down supply side kool-aid?

Granted, I couldn't even vote till '86 so I was fairly young and still had a lot to learn, but even I could tell back then that supply-side trickle down economics was a bunch of bullshiat which merely functioned to make the rich richer.  How is it that so many people bought into this crap?

Economically illiterate and/ or innumerate. There's a lot of it about. We have a sizable industry called "gaming", (aka gambling) in this country which is solely viable because of the existence of that demographic.


Don't forget the credit card industry.  They survive because a whole swath of the population can't do basic math.
 
2013-11-27 05:10:31 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Economically illiterate and/ or innumerate. There's a lot of it about. We have a sizable industry called "gaming", (aka gambling) in this country which is solely viable because of the existence of that demographic.


I dunno. They say gambling at least gives you a rush. Supply-side economics doesn't seem like it would have that kind of draw.
 
2013-11-27 05:10:56 PM  
What the hell was the point of that article?
 
2013-11-27 05:12:05 PM  

whidbey: MFAWG: I like how we're talking about the same thing, but I'm the one who's full of shiat.

You are. I gave you a credible example which disproved your argument.

The honorable thing to do is admit your point is disinformation.


The good jobs were in manufacturing. Where were those manufactured goods going in the late '40s and early and mid 50s?

Now, that started to change in the 60s and early 70s, and guess what happened to those jobs?
 
2013-11-27 05:13:01 PM  

WhyteRaven74: MFAWG: You mean when we were the only industrial power with any manufacturing capability and able to export those goods to rebuilding economies? Those 50's?

Do you know how I know you have no idea about history?


Do tell?
 
2013-11-27 05:16:41 PM  

MFAWG: whidbey: MFAWG: I like how we're talking about the same thing, but I'm the one who's full of shiat.

You are. I gave you a credible example which disproved your argument.

The honorable thing to do is admit your point is disinformation.

The good jobs were in manufacturing. Where were those manufactured goods going in the late '40s and early and mid 50s?

Now, that started to change in the 60s and early 70s, and guess what happened to those jobs?


I blame Nixon. Detente started cooling off the cold war paranoia and took a bunch of military industrial complex jobs with it.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report