Sunday, August 09, 2020

3rd

"America Is About To Feel Like A 3rd World Nation" (Welsh).  We really should retire 'third world' 'developing nation' and other such terms which may have made sense in the 60s, but are just confusing now.  The sad thing is that there will certainly be dramatic negative change for many people, millions of people, but the overall picture can and will be well hidden by the (((media))), in the same way (((they))) hide this sort of problem now.  One of the worst things in what Soros is doing is that he sucks up all the potential revolutionary energy into partisan politics (never Trump), but is using that energy to promote Biden, a slightly more polished and possibly less boorish version of Trump, with many characteristics which are much worse.

"The Open Society and Its Giant Enemies" (Atzmon).  Comment by AnonStarter.

"DNC Appears Ready to Sideline Progressive Standout Ocasio-Cortez at Upcoming Convention" (Higgins).  Kasich, but no AOC!  Classic Dems!

"Trump antagonizes GOP megadonor Adelson in heated phone call" (Isenstadt).  Trump's not knowing, and not getting a tattoo of, the actual number of shekels is the ultimate sin.  "Trump’s quarrel with mega-donor Sheldon Adelson could be good news for Mideast peace" (North):
". . . anyone who follows the Mideast recognizes that a Trump-Adelson rupture could have two positive consequences right away:

* Trump could now be less likely to support Benjamin Netanyahu’s hope to illegally annex up to 30 percent of West Bank Palestine.

* Trump could also be less likely to let Israel sucker him into starting a conflict with Iran.

This mildly optimistic scenario is based partly on a revelation in the memoir of John Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security adviser before turning against him. Bolton says that the U.S. was all set to launch air strikes against Iran in June 2019, but Trump called off the attack at the last minute, concerned that it might kill 150 Iranians. Bolton (who Trump appointed apparently to please Adelson) was disgusted, but the episode may show that the president has to be prodded into using violence.

The brief Times mention of the Trump-Adelson disagreement raises an interesting question: why didn’t the paper consult Mideast experts and draw some conclusions about the rupture’s possible impact on U.S. policy? Adelson’s warmongering pro-Israel views are no secret; he has even called for “an atomic weapon” to be fired at Iran. If a mega-donor connected to say, Big Pharma, broke with Trump, the Times would surely connect the dots. But somehow the Israel factor goes unreported.  
(P.S. Politico is also reporting about the Trump-Adelson disagreement — and also making no mention of its potential impact on Israel, Iran and Mideast peace.)"
"Susan Rice vs. Kamala Harris: At Least Harris Didn't Murder Gadaffi" (Sailer).  I thought Harris was a lock, but it appears Biden is steamed over the zingers Harris released against him during the nomination campaign.  This person will almost certainly become President, and that monstrosity will set up 46's 47's easy win in 2024.

"NYT: Remember What We Told You About the Peaceful Protests? Well, Never Mind ..." (Sailer).

"The Future of US Politics: PoC vs. Zionist" (Sailer).

"A Huge Wall Street Scandal Just Exploded In Kentucky" (Sirota).

"These Executive Orders Make No Sense" (Studebaker):
"Consider the President’s order to renew the federal unemployment supplement at a reduced value of $400 per week. The people collecting unemployment are spending all of their money on essentials. By taking a third of their income, the President is effectively proposing to cut their consumption by a third. This means that in the middle of an economic cataclysm, tens of millions of Americans will suddenly reduce their consumer spending by a third! Those businesses that have survived coronavirus to this point need every penny of that money to stay alive, and many more will shutter if the benefit is cut from $600 per week to $400.

But that’s not all–the President’s order mandates that state governments pay $100 of the $400. If the states don’t put up the $100, their citizens lose the whole $400. Many states simply don’t have the money to contribute $100 per week to all their unemployed. States are seeing dramatic revenue shortfalls because of collapsing economic output. They don’t have the money to maintain their extant public services, let alone take on new obligations. Unlike the federal government, state governments cannot purchase their own bonds through quantitative easing. They can’t print their way out of trouble. So if this order comes into force, many states won’t take part, and that means that many citizens will lose their federal unemployment supplement through the misfortune of happening to live in states in financial trouble. The President’s executive action offers no aid to state governments–even though the states have asked for hundreds of billions in aid. It’s one thing to refuse to offer aid to the states. It’s quite another to demand that they shill out even more money they don’t have. If the federal governments wants to encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of the states, it should be helping the states make ends meet instead of giving them new obligations they can’t meet. 
So some of our unemployed will get a diminished, rump federal supplement. Others will get nothing. It will all be decided by which states they happen to live in. And in the meantime, because the executive action doesn’t provide aid to states, massive revenue shortfalls will continue to force the states–many of whom are constrained by formal balanced budget requirements–to cut schools, infrastructure, police, and pensions. These cuts will, of course, create more unemployment and further strangle economic growth."
Very topical!:  "Western media’s favorite Hong Kong ‘freedom struggle writer’ is American ex-Amnesty staffer in yellowface" (Blumenthal).

"Insiders say Justin Trudeau doesn’t want an election. He wants to seize the moment and push through bold change" (MacCharles) (noting that The Star is often just a PR outlet for the Liberal Party):
"The thinking goes like this: the pandemic exposed major social and economic inequities when it comes to child care, long-term care for seniors, women’s ability to remain in the workforce when schools are shut, the lack of social safety net backstops for precarious workers, and the disproportionate economic and health impacts of the virus on Black people and other minority communities. And so now is the time, with the cost of long-term borrowing so cheap due to historically low interest rates, to address those inequities for the longer term, sources said.

One said there is an “opportunity for us to think big to think about child care, to think about how we can accelerate the transition to clean energy and how we can fight climate change, how we can help vulnerable people, how we can root out discrimination and level the playing field for working people and on all the progressive ideas that we’ve talked about and made progress on but in a different context. So can we actually present a big vision? I think we can.”

The Star is not identifying the sources because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

One insider with knowledge of the prime minister’s thinking said Trudeau is not looking at provoking a fall election with the economy still in a crucial “restart” phase, but he is looking toward the “recovery” phase. That source suggested the more likely option is a budget in the new year that would lay out the bolder plan. 
Opposition parties could choose to vote non-confidence in such a plan and trigger a vote. But sources said Trudeau is not aiming to trigger one with a plan that would not win support. They pointed to how in a minority position the government has been able to advance most of its big-ticket pandemic programs."
blog comments powered by Disqus