Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

From Hans in the comments (I noticed this too):
"It started with Pakistan and Iran. However later editions of the news dropped Iran. Me thinks this Wiki leaks was staged as you rightly say 'never waste an opportunity', however saying Iran supports the Taliban is so far fetched that even the CIA has some sense!"
The same old neocons (90% Jews, 10% bought-off members of the Security Industrial Complex) who lied the United States into its empire-ending War For The Jews against Iraq are now claiming that an American attack on Iran is 'inevitable'!

"The political genius of supply-side economics":
"My reading of contemporary Republican thinking is that there is no chance of any attempt to arrest adverse long-term fiscal trends should they return to power. Moreover, since the Republicans have no interest in doing anything sensible, the Democrats will gain nothing from trying to do much either. That is the lesson Democrats have to draw from the Clinton era’s successful frugality, which merely gave George W. Bush the opportunity to make massive (irresponsible and unsustainable) tax cuts. In practice, then, nothing will be done.

Indeed, nothing may be done even if a genuine fiscal crisis were to emerge. According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some “conservatives” (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control. It should be noted, in passing, that a federal default would surely create the biggest financial crisis in world economic history.

To understand modern Republican thinking on fiscal policy, we need to go back to perhaps the most politically brilliant (albeit economically unconvincing) idea in the history of fiscal policy: “supply-side economics”. Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue.

The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?

How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits. They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives - for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state."
"22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America"

"The Land of Greatly Diminished Opportunity":
"In the wake of tax cuts, what seems to occur among the wealthiest is not enterprise re-investment or job creation, but profit-taking. No longer incented to "protect their money from the government" by plowing it back into their businesses, the rich instead either save it - often in overseas tax havens - or spend it elsewhere. Such spending does drive some level of growth, but on a scale altogether far inferior to that from reinvestment or even public sector spending."
"The New Doom":
"Last week, not very far from the hedge fund manager's ranch, the billionaire John Malone gave a little-noticed interview to The Wall Street Journal from Allen & Co.'s annual Sun Valley conference. Asked about the biggest risks to Liberty, his media conglomerate, Mr. Malone said his concern was this country's survival. "We have a retreat that's right on the Quebec border. We own 18 miles on the border, so we can cross. Anytime we want to, we can get away."

His wife is more concerned: She's already moved her personal cash to Australia and Canada. "She wants to have a place to go," said Mr. Malone, No. 400 on this year's Forbes list of the richest people in the world, "if things blow up here.""
War on AC: "Quote of the Day: Thomas Friedman On The Horrific Cost Of Air Conditioning" (and comment by Spincycleswirl)

Trying to change the subject: "Pak links to Taliban a "scapegoat" for US"

"Controversial DNA Crime-fighting Technique Keeps It All In the Family": they caught the "Grim Sleeper" serial murderer using a massive breach of privacy. Nobody cares.

"Did Bradley Manning Act Alone?" "Afghanistan war logs: Story behind biggest leak in intelligence history" Manning wouldn't have had access to all this material without a lot of help from relatively high up in the Pentagon.
blog comments powered by Disqus