Fox News “Psycho” Analyst Welcomes Pain For Already Struggling Americans

In one of the most repugnant expressions of heartlessness ever put forth by a major media enterprise, Keith Ablow, the Fox News psycho analyst, has callously come out in favor of making less fortunate Americans suffer in even greater measure. He is literally giddy over the prospect of inflicting more pain on people who have endured so much of it already. And at the same time he neglects any such sacrifice for our nation’s privileged and wealthy – like himself.

Keith Ablow

Despite labeling himself an “economic masochist,” Ablow would be more accurately described as a sadomasochist because he is advocating for others to experience pain along with his own. He sets the stage for this depravity with a tale of his inconvenience at the airport:

“I traveled from Boston to New York yesterday on the Delta shuttle out of Logan. The lines were especially long, and the wait to get through security was 30 minutes. It’s usually about 10 minutes at the time of day I was flying.”

Ablow explained that the extended delay was due to the elimination of overtime by the TSA as a result of the sequester budget cuts. Then we went on to say…

“My immediate reaction to the announcement that I should anticipate inconveniences at airport security wasn’t annoyance or worry; it was relief and resolve, about the short staffing. I felt good that budget cuts were being made and that I could feel them.

I liked the pain, because I am certain that our economy will not be righted without some discomfort–mine, included. I felt like my wait in line was showing some personal discipline in service to the public good.” […] “I am hoping for more pain from the Sequester.”

For a rich psychiatrist and television commentator to embrace the “pain” of waiting twenty minutes more than usual for his (probably first class) flight as some sort of patriotic sacrifice on the scale of Nathan Hale’s famous regret, makes a mockery of citizens who truly gave something of value for their country – like their lives.

Even worse, Ablow appears to be utterly unaware that the sequester’s impending cuts are going to disproportionally harm low income seniors and children, as well as the sick, the homeless, and veterans. Yet Ablow has the gall to call for sacrifice only on the part of those who are hurting the most and that those moochers ought to “not only anticipate pain, but welcome it.”

Nowhere in his screed does Ablow suggest that privileged folks like himself should participate in the “service to the public good” by paying a little more in taxes. He and his upper class comrades are the ones who have benefited most from the economic recovery of the past four years. The stock market is at an all time high and the rich, according to Forbes, are enjoying unprecedented growth while paying less in taxes.

Shared Sacrifice

In Ablow’s world only the poor and middle class are expected to sacrifice. He and his peers must be permitted to maintain the luxurious lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. And that lifestyle must be paid for by underprivileged kids, fixed-income seniors, and disabled vets. And still they have the audacity to congratulate themselves for magnanimously waiting a few extra minutes to get through airport security as if that were some sort of torturous act of heroism. You’d think he had been nailed to a cross. What a repellant pile of unadulterated douchebaggery.


35 thoughts on “Fox News “Psycho” Analyst Welcomes Pain For Already Struggling Americans

  1. I thought the tax increases on the rich that just occurred recently were supposed to address their “shared sacrifice” by “paying their fair share”. How quickly the “fair share” goal post gets moved.

    Ablow tends to be an ass, but aside from that, an article like this demonstrates how the Left will never be satisfied that anybody who is “rich” will ever pay enough. Only in a world of shared misery (more commonly known as a socialist society) can fairness ever exist.

    • How are the goal posts moved? Ablow certainly isn’t advocating for cuts on the rich like himself, regardless of what taxes have already been passed.

      And this article is addressing Ablow’s comments.

      • I realize the article addresses Ablow’s comments, but in the context of the sequester and its mandated cuts. I think the point of Ablow’s commentary was that there is going to be sacrifice and it’s going to be unpleasant, but it needs to happen.

        As I stated, Ablow tends to be an ass. But typically, Mark’s comments take things to an absurd level. The hyperbole of equating Ablow’s comments to those of Nathan Hale is just ludicrous. And his graphic depicting Republicans’ idea of shared sacrifice is nothing more than demonizing those whom he disagrees. He’s entitled to disagree with whoever he likes…and so can I.

        In Mark’s world, only the so called rich are expected to sacrifice. The middle class and poor must be permitted to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. And that lifestyle must be paid for by those corporate jet owning, country club belonging 1 percenters…notwithstanding some out of touch idiot’s poor example of the sacrifice he’s dealing with.

        • Thanks so much for your example of right-wing callousness by mocking my words: “The middle class and poor must be permitted to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.” ???

          You do realize, don’t you, that the middle class and poor are struggling to get by while the rich are thriving? And the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider. Yet you are defending those who fight tooth and nail for the wealthy and push to exacerbate the suffering of everyone else.

          • Of course I realize who is struggling. I count myself among them. My comment was not intended to be callous; it was to illustrate how the only answer the Left seems to have is to tax some amorphous rich dude just because he’s “rich”. I’m not sure I’d call that callous, but it certainly fails to address the underlying problem that we are spending too much money as a country, and that there is some limit to how much money the rich have that the govt. can get its hands on.

            Before January, the rich were being asked to sacrifice just a little bit by “paying their fair share”, while reducing spending as a balanced approach toward fiscal balance. Now, we’re in the bowels of sequestration, mainly because Pres. Obama wanted more tax revenue.

            Eventually, the govt. will run out of taxing ability on the rich and they’re going to come to the rest of us to pay our fair share. Taxing the rich is just an appetizer for the govt.; the middle class is where the real money is

            • You got it right John – they just keep the blinders on and the BS flowing until their collectivist society is achieved.

      • The goal posts have moved now that the Jan. 2013 tax increases are in…now there’s a call for closing tax loopholes. I doubt Pres. Obama is referring to the Earned Income Tax Credit. You don’t negotiate a tax increase and then turn around and call for more increases, amounting to that which you couldn’t get in the recent negotiations.

        • A) That’s not an increase.
          B) That was already on the Republican’s to-do list.

          Or are you saying the goal of balancing the budget isn’t actually your goal?

          • The goal of balancing the budget is not a goal of any politician in Washington.

    • The tax increases we have still don’t bring taxes to where we were before slash-and-spend Bush and the Republican Congress cut them.

      • As opposed to the “We don’t need no budget” Obama and Democrat/Republican Congress? Well, you can’t blame the lack of a budget on Republicans. They’re all self serving narcissists.

        Tax increases are only a feel good measure to make the middle class believe their interests are being protected. Like lambs to slaughter!

  2. Who is calling for more tax increases on the rich?

    • In Jan. 2013, taxes were increased on the rich. Now, there’s a call for more revenue (translation = more taxes, and certainly not on the poor) by getting rid of “tax loopholes”.

  3. Which is not a tax increase, a position many Republicans until recently agreed with until 1) Obama advocated them and 2) Grover Norquist told them not to.

    And, of course, by your standard, since Republicans got their spending cuts in 2011, you could accuse them of moving the goalposts too.

    • First of all, the spending cuts the in 2011 are not what Republicans wanted. Republicans want to reform entitlements, not just nip around the edges of discretionary spending.

      • They voted for these spending cuts unanimously.

        They haven’t voted for anything else.

        Funny, that. Seems like that want this to happen.

  4. Capital belongs to the Capitalists Poverty belongs to the Poor.

    The 1% and their Corporate Monsters are the Biggest Moochers in the History of the World. They steal the lives (often literally as opposed to just the figurative life-stealing of punching the clock) of their thralls. Men who’ve never worked a day (Mitt Romney, stephen Schwartzman, Paul Singer) in their lives.

    We’ll be a Neo-Feudalist Dream State, were taxes are only paid by the people, while the Plutocrats rule,soon enough.

    • If what you say is true about men like Mitt Romney who have never worked a day in their lives, the mistake of the poor is that they work. And what of those who are poor and don’t work? Why are they poor?

      You are living in a dream world. There is no question that there are inequities in life as there are in capitalism, but poverty is not like prison. One has the opportunity and the tools to become successful. Even then, there is no guarantee of success. What you want are guarantees, and nobody can provide that.

      • Horse feathers. The Rich “Venture Capitalist” aren’t creating anything. They are “making” money by legerdemain and gambling. The most vile aspect of right-wing thinking is this idea that everyone gets an equal shot or has the same playing field and it’s because the Poor are lazy that they are poor.

        John, you are a malicious man.

        • Not malicious, just stating truth. If you believe that only the rich at birth have a shot at being successful, you are delusional.

          Venture capitalists are but a very small minority. It’s true many get insanely rich from taking risks on the success of new companies with an idea and a plan. Without them, all the innovative ideas in the world might not come to fruition. While this minority will get obscenely rich, they also serve an important service by facilitating new business that employs those who aren’t business owners, but employees of those businesses instead.

          Everyone is playing on the same field. Not everyone can run or catch or hit a ball the same. But everyone does get to play if they want…or not. It’s not because of laziness that the poor are poor, although there are some poor people who are lazy. There are also rich people who are lazy, and it is likewise not the cause of their wealth.

          You should stop trying to ascribe as evil anyone who believes in capitalism. Likewise I won’t call you an ignorant socialist who believes in the guaranteed outcome of equal misery for all.

          • I know you believe what you’re writing but it’s pure tripe. America has a nearly iron-clad Class System in place. Rich lay abouts who inherit money stay rich and 99% of people born into poverty remain poor.

            And now what the Rich want to do is destroy the Middle Class by having their Republican stooges undercut, safe work places, by defunding the EPA and OSHA, destroy living wages by weasely crafted legislation undercutting Unions and enforcing Right-to-Work-for-less laws and by stealing Medicare and Social Security.

            • Go tell your story to Oprah, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Magic Johnson, millions of entrepreneurs who came from dirt poor families, but overcame their poverty.

              Tell that to Eminem, Sean Combs and Jay-Z. Or even guys like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who may have had a leg up in life, but still innovated, worked hard and created things we all want, and rightfully making tons of money.

              Tell that to people I know from the inner city, who today are working hard at educating themselves in spite of their difficult circumstances, and will become tomorrow’s leaders and innovators and probably very rich.

              If you truly believe “America has a nearly iron-clad class system”, you have been spending too much time in your parents’ basement reading the unabridged collection of Hugo Chavez’s speeches.

            • Wow, John you are a sick and twisted puke of human being! Were those 4 black people you heard about the best you could come up with for the “millions of entrepreneurs who came from dirt poor families”.

              You are a defender of the Rich and Powerful. You’re a Pinkerton. You are a dutiful lapdog for you Plutocratic Masters. Enjoy your table scraps like a good dog!

  5. @Grung_e_Gene: As is typical, you have no real comeback so you have to attack me. First of all, I mentioned 6 black people, not 4. Secondly, I’m not defending the rich and powerful; I’m defending all those people you believe have no chance of success. By the way, among those millions of entrepreneurs, I count myself among them.

    Your cup runneth over with ignorance. The more you say, the more obvious it becomes. Perhaps you might want to move on to the next discussion so you don’t embarrass yourself any further.

    • No you didn’t liar. You mentioned 4 black people followed by your belief the were among the “millions” who came from dirt poor beginnings.

      Then you mentioned another 3 people.

      Read your own dumb ass post. Also, idiot, I didn’t “say” anything I typed it. For a brilliant successful business man you sure don’t understand this medium.

      Your a sick and stupid.

      • Ok, so let’s count the black people:
        1. Oprah
        2. Barack Obama
        3. Michelle Obama
        4. Magic Johnson
        5. Sean Combs
        6. Jay-Z

        If I wanted to stoop as low as you, I’d mention that you were probably absent from school during Apostrophe and Punctuation week, as well as Sentence Structure and Spelling Month, but I won’t. Besides, somehow I suspect you were at school the whole time.

    • @John C. Plantada: I hope you realize Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became rich by basically appropriating other peoples’ technology. Bill Gates assumed ownership of someone else’s GUI OS and made it his own. Jobs was the marketer behind Wozniak’s invention, the apple PC. I do not know of anything Jobs himself created; he just used people, just like Thomas Edison. Jobs would have been nothing without the Woz.

      Back in the ’70s, Gates and Wozniak were members of the Home Brew Computer Club. He was also known as one of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. Much of the clubs innovations were opensource. It was a form of amusement and personal growth. Gates and his partner, Allen shared Basic with the club. Woz and Jobs shared Apple I with the club. Gates, Allen, and Jobs used the other people’s work to refine their product to launch their own enterprises. Afterwards, they threatened their friends with lawsuits if they continued to use the software they all worked on together.

      That is what venture capitalism is. It is the process of separating others from their work, passing it off as your own, and punishing the those who originated the work or shared in its development.

      • I am not defending everything that Gates or Jobs ever did. In business, as in life, often there are those who are movers and shakers, and others who are not. Sometimes the movers and shakers do things that are inappropriate. Shame on them.

        But you can’t totally blow off a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or even Thomas Edison as guys who didn’t create things, and implying we might all be better off had they not been successful. With Woz’s talent (and lack of marketing and other skills), he might have the coolest computer in the world, but the rest of us would be using our IBM Selectric XXXIX. The same goes for Thomas Edison.

        Capitalism tends to be predatory in nature. The strongest survive. Without it, we would all be driving 1955 Chevys, living on permanent food rationing and surviving on $10/month whether you’re a doctor or sweep floors for a living. Some call it socialism, some call it communism, I call it the worst kind of misery.

        • That is not entirely accurate. If it were not for humanists, we would be living in a technologically inferior present. Capitalist live for playing Monopoly on the World Stage. Money is their god. Humanists live for humanity. They are above ego, political ideology, and monetary virtues.

          What would the world be like if Nikola Tesla learned to be just as ruthless and exploitative as his mentor Edison. We may never have had hydro-electric power at Niagara Falls, AC power, microwaves, X-ray tubes, transformers, radio, fluorescent bulbs, radio control, and on and on. You, also, cannot deny the efforts of Jonas Salk. Imagine if he were a hot-blooded capitalist like Robert Gallos. People in the developed world would still be suffering from Polio.

          I picture capitalism as a hindrance to progress, not a motivator, instigator, integrator, or even an enabler. It fundamentally retards progress. This country’s infrastructure is obsolete in some areas by 50 years!

          All major appliances, machines, and cars are built to break. The best materials at the lowest possible prices. This means you get a gas guzzling car which breaks down on the freeway after a 100,000 miles, a light bulb which burns out after only a year, and a refrigerator which can last 5 to 10 years, if you are lucky. It means that any product you buy is already inferior and will need to be replaced. This is in keeping with the economic cycle, but it is totally contrived.

          I know for a fact machines built during the middle of the industrial revolution were built to last for decades not years. There is a light bulb in Livermore California, known as the centennial light bulb, which has been glowing for over a century! We know technology can make our products safer, last longer, and be completely energy efficient. Yet, we have fooled ourselves into thinking this is only possible with free-market, unbridled, capitalism.

          Remember the Firestone Tire disaster in the early 2000s? Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Mazda Navajos became death-traps when they were outfitted with old, dry-rotted, and defective tires. Rather than Ford and Firestone accepting responsibility, they played the blame game. To them, profits trumped human lives. They knew the product was defective, but it took human lives before they could do the right thing and recall them.

          • There’s no denying there are those who have created and innovated for the good of mankind. But capitalism and humanism are not mutually exclusive in the world.

            There are as many flaws in capitalism as there are with any human endeavor. But I’d rather live in a capitalist society than not.

            Your comment: “I picture capitalism as a hindrance to progress, not a motivator, instigator, integrator, or even an enabler. It fundamentally retards progress. This country’s infrastructure is obsolete in some areas by 50 years!…”

            Perhaps you might want to hang out in Cuba where capitalism hasn’t existed over the past 50 years to see what progress really, really looks like.

        • In regards to Bill Gates, he did create Basic and help perfect the GUI system, but his empire was created on the backs of his employees. The same goes for Steve Jobs. They did not make their company into successes; their employees did.

          Also, it is hard to actually gauge what would have transpired without these companies. However,other people besides Gates and Jobs were developing computers for personal use. The opensource software movement was also alive and well. If Microsoft and Apple never grew like they did, we still have had personal computers. Actually, Linux and Unix systems would take over and we would have free software. The internet would have been a cheap service. Our personal computing experiences might have vastly improved, unlike the claustrophobic mess we have today.

          • Oh, right! I forgot. Gates didn’t build that! Jobs didn’t build that! Nobody is denying that employees at Microsoft and Apple worked really hard to create the products we enjoy today. But “on their backs”? Really? I suppose those poor employees were only making minimum wage (or perhaps less) while they were stuffed into dark rooms and only fed a couple of days per week.

            In the case of Apple, I recall Steve Jobs left and the organization continued to innovate and create such compelling products that they almost went bankrupt. Curiously when he returned, the company’s fortunes turned around.

            Without Gates and Jobs, the world would be a better place, with free software and virtually free internet. I would submit to you that if Gates and Jobs had never existed, someone else with a profit motive would have stepped in.

            If capitalism makes you claustrophobic, perhaps the freedom of little choice and opportunity in more restrictive economies might be worth considering.

            • Do not go putting words in my mouth. I am not saying their employees made minimum wage. I am also not saying those companies never made stellar products, overpriced, perhaps.

              What I am saying, is that Gates and Jobs probably took the same condescending attitude you gave me and gave it to their employees. I lost all respect for Gates when he told congress he outsources because nobody in this country is fit to run his company. I lost all respect for Jobs when I learned he psychologically abused his employees, yelling epithets and profanities. I learned from publications they were both emotionally immature. Jobs was probably bipolar, and borderline psychotic. These things are all documented if you care to look.

              I was not clear before in my earlier screeds, but I will be blunt now. I do not believe in capitalism, socialism, or communism. They are all words used as an artifice by the media and politicians to confuse us. None of these systems give us choice, so long as our currency is debt-based. Remember, gold is the currency of kings and queens; silver is the currency of gentile fold; and, debt is the currency of slaves. Our money is a brain disease. It exists in financial computer models and our imaginations. We live for money, instead of each other. I do not see how that is freedom.

              Government by politicians bought with corporate dollars is not a democracy for the people. Besides, the only people who have time for democracy are the wealthiest among us, who do not have to work. In ancient Greece, it was the same. Democracy was reserved for wealthy plutocrats, because their slaves freed them from their work. The system today does not use emotionally charged words as master and servant. Instead, they are socially accepted terms of employment. We have producer and consumer, employer and employee, and incorporated and nonprofit.

              We may be heading for some form of socialism, but it is not socialism for the people. It is corporate socialism. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, TARP, government subsidies, and Super PACs are all forms if this type of socialism. The only way this will change is if we the people stop tacitly condoning such irresponsible behavior.

              I am sorry Plantada the limits of your experience and the loss of innocence have the doors of imagination and left you jaded. I know we can do much better as a species; we owe it to future generations. Yet, all I see is apathy, greed, and a big f-you, if you pardon the expression.

              We, my partner and I, are working very hard to make our business work. Yet, we shake our heads everyday. We feel we are held captive by the system. We had goals, ambitions, and dreams, but we need to make a living, too. So please, do not talk to me about how we are free here. We only think we are free. Anybody would think that. I did once. There was nothing this country did or provided which gave the impression of freedom, except people constantly tell me I was free. Also, it was hard to ignore the nonstop broadcasting of nationalist propaganda and commercials, flying the flag, talking about freedom. They were just trying to get my vote or my wallet.

              In closing, we live in a global community, where our very survival depends on the empathy of that community. In a community, we thrive. When we are alone, we do not. This is what defined us as a species, cooperation, empathy, and technology. That is also what I meant above by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs not building their corporations alone. When everyone comes together as a single community, we thrive. When we are alone, truly alone, we die.

  6. @Sappho: I appreciate your perspective. But I think the one who has become jaded. I own a business, too and get frustrated with the requirements put on me by the government. I’m trying to earn a living, just like you.

    Perhaps our perspectives on freedom are different. I suppose we all wind up answering to one master or another. And sometimes we may not be too happy with that master.

    I like to look at things a little differently. I thank God for the opportunities I have, such as they are. And I try to make the most of it. I don’t worry too much about who has manipulated whom to get where they are. I just work hard and try to carve out my piece of happiness.

    I wish you the best in your business and your life.

    • Thanks for your reply. The world would be boring if everyone believed and thought the same. I only desire for a better world for all; that is all. I wish the best for you, as well.

Comments are closed.