from Slate Magazine by Jacob Weisberg
"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq."
—meeting with Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008
My comment:
A gaff is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck
Why voters always choose the wascally wabbit for president.
By Jeff Greenfield / Slate
How did we reach the point at which Sen. Clinton, the clear Democratic front-runner six months ago, needs clear wins in Texas and Ohio to mute the calls for her to end her campaign?
There's no unified field theory that answers this question: You can give more or less weight to Obama's political magnetism, the tactical and strategic miscalculations of the Clinton campaign, the delegate-allocation rules that weakened the punch of Clinton's big-state wins, the crucial difficulty of a former first lady who embodies Restoration competing in an election in which change is the watchword. And here's another explanation for this remarkable reversal of fortune, one that represents for me one of the few really reliable rules of presidential political warfare: Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.
A smart piece of analysis after the click ...
By Jeff Greenfield / Slate
How did we reach the point at which Sen. Clinton, the clear Democratic front-runner six months ago, needs clear wins in Texas and Ohio to mute the calls for her to end her campaign?
There's no unified field theory that answers this question: You can give more or less weight to Obama's political magnetism, the tactical and strategic miscalculations of the Clinton campaign, the delegate-allocation rules that weakened the punch of Clinton's big-state wins, the crucial difficulty of a former first lady who embodies Restoration competing in an election in which change is the watchword. And here's another explanation for this remarkable reversal of fortune, one that represents for me one of the few really reliable rules of presidential political warfare: Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.
A smart piece of analysis after the click ...
The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same
"Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils."
– Thucydides (circa 460 BC – c. 395 BC)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Homeland Security?
from Jesus' General
It appears that Senator John McCain has been systematically engaged in a "genocide" of sorts against the Navajo (Di'neh) People in his home state of Arizona. In order to further the interest of mining companies (Peabody Western and others) he has sponsored and passed laws to forcibly relocate thousands of Di'neh from their ancestral lands on the reservation that was guaranteed to them by Treaty in the 1870's. In order to do this, he has had the assistance of BIA lawyers who have forged signatures of Di'neh elders (most of whom do not read, write or speak English) on documents supposedly giving permission for their lands and their civil rights to be given away. John McCain has also used the divisive tactic of claiming that the Hopi Tribal Council is empowered to make decisions for the Di'neh (they do not as they are a different tribe).
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has investigated this situation, found that the US is violating Article 10 of The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly be removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
The rest after the click ...
It appears that Senator John McCain has been systematically engaged in a "genocide" of sorts against the Navajo (Di'neh) People in his home state of Arizona. In order to further the interest of mining companies (Peabody Western and others) he has sponsored and passed laws to forcibly relocate thousands of Di'neh from their ancestral lands on the reservation that was guaranteed to them by Treaty in the 1870's. In order to do this, he has had the assistance of BIA lawyers who have forged signatures of Di'neh elders (most of whom do not read, write or speak English) on documents supposedly giving permission for their lands and their civil rights to be given away. John McCain has also used the divisive tactic of claiming that the Hopi Tribal Council is empowered to make decisions for the Di'neh (they do not as they are a different tribe).
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has investigated this situation, found that the US is violating Article 10 of The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly be removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
The rest after the click ...
The $3,000,000,000,000 War is a Domestic Issue
By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post
As our seemingly endless primary process reaches the homestretch and the focus shifts to the general election, we need to pull the plug on the media's disturbing habit of acting as if foreign policy and domestic policy are completely separate entities -- a pair of high stakes board games that can only be taken off the shelf and played one at a time. To hear the media tell it, combining the two would make about as much sense as using your Monopoly pieces to play Risk.
But while there is almost nothing about the Iraq war that can be labeled a success, we can declare that it has been exceedingly successful in showing how intertwined foreign and domestic policy actually are. In the book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, along with co-author Linda Bilmes, argue that, even using "conservative assumptions," the Iraq war will cost at least $3,000,000,000,000, and likely as much as $5,000,000,000,000.
Stiglitz also argues that the war has played a major role in the current subprime credit crisis and our long, hard slog toward recession. Because of the cost of the war, the Fed flooded the system with credit. "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," Stiglitz told The Australian's Peter Wilson.
The book (excerpted here by the Times of London, and here's an interview with the authors at Democracy Now) notes that the cost is 60 times the $50 - 60 billion we were told the war would cost by Don Rumsfeld. The Iraq war is already the second costliest war in American history, trailing only World War II.
As our seemingly endless primary process reaches the homestretch and the focus shifts to the general election, we need to pull the plug on the media's disturbing habit of acting as if foreign policy and domestic policy are completely separate entities -- a pair of high stakes board games that can only be taken off the shelf and played one at a time. To hear the media tell it, combining the two would make about as much sense as using your Monopoly pieces to play Risk.
But while there is almost nothing about the Iraq war that can be labeled a success, we can declare that it has been exceedingly successful in showing how intertwined foreign and domestic policy actually are. In the book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, along with co-author Linda Bilmes, argue that, even using "conservative assumptions," the Iraq war will cost at least $3,000,000,000,000, and likely as much as $5,000,000,000,000.
Stiglitz also argues that the war has played a major role in the current subprime credit crisis and our long, hard slog toward recession. Because of the cost of the war, the Fed flooded the system with credit. "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," Stiglitz told The Australian's Peter Wilson.
The book (excerpted here by the Times of London, and here's an interview with the authors at Democracy Now) notes that the cost is 60 times the $50 - 60 billion we were told the war would cost by Don Rumsfeld. The Iraq war is already the second costliest war in American history, trailing only World War II.
Stiglitz makes the case that no country can fight a protracted war without deep and long-lasting effects on domestic policy. Particularly a protracted war paired with tax cuts. Now this doesn't mean a war shouldn't be fought (see World War II), but it does mean that our leaders should be honest about what the real costs will be. And not just in terms of dollars and cents but also in opportunity costs.
More after the click ...
Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai
By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent
"And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking." Thus the book of Exodus describes the impressive moment of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.
The "perceiving of the voices" has been interpreted endlessly since these words were first written. When Professor Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reads the verse, he recalls a powerful hallucinatory experience he had when he visited the Amazon and drank a potion made from a plant called ayahuasca.
"One of the things that happens when you drink the potion is a visual experience created via sounds," he says.
Shanon presents a provocative theory in an article published this week in the philosophy journal Time and Mind. The religious ceremonies of the Israelites included the use of psychotropic materials that can found in the Negev and Sinai, he says.
Tune in and drop out after the click ...
"And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking." Thus the book of Exodus describes the impressive moment of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.
The "perceiving of the voices" has been interpreted endlessly since these words were first written. When Professor Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reads the verse, he recalls a powerful hallucinatory experience he had when he visited the Amazon and drank a potion made from a plant called ayahuasca.
"One of the things that happens when you drink the potion is a visual experience created via sounds," he says.
Shanon presents a provocative theory in an article published this week in the philosophy journal Time and Mind. The religious ceremonies of the Israelites included the use of psychotropic materials that can found in the Negev and Sinai, he says.
Tune in and drop out after the click ...
Still true after all these years
"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."
-- Will Rogers
-- Will Rogers
The Gaza Bombshell
by David Rose / Vanity Fair
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
Check it out after the click ...
My comment:
Foreign policy experience at work.
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
Check it out after the click ...
My comment:
Foreign policy experience at work.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Drake Equation
The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. The Drake Equation is:
The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live
When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:
N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.
The real value of the Drake Equation is not in the answer itself, but the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guess work involved when filling in the variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, we'll be able to better estimate the answers to the above questions.
You can play with the numbers yourself ... here.
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
- Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
- Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
- Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
- Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
- Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
- Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
- Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
- Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
- Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
- Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
- Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
- Answer: 10% to 20%
fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live
- Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
- Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:
N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.
The real value of the Drake Equation is not in the answer itself, but the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guess work involved when filling in the variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, we'll be able to better estimate the answers to the above questions.
You can play with the numbers yourself ... here.
Bush Says He Lets Red Phone Go Straight to Voicemail
from Huffington Post by Andy Borowitz
President George W. Bush commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton's controversial "red phone" campaign ads at the White House today, telling reporters, "When that red phone rings, I just let it go straight to voicemail."
Mr. Bush rarely comments about the Democratic presidential contest, but he said that he had to speak up about Sen. Clinton's red phone ads because he found them "so confusing."
"If I answered the red phone every time it rang, I would never get any sleep," Mr. Bush said. "Sometimes it starts ringing at 9 PM, and I am already tucked in by then."
[...]
Elsewhere, Sen. John McCain released a new series of campaign ads, showing him answering a telegraph key at 3 A.M.
Get the whole bit after the click ...
My comment:
Hey, McCain is probably the best choice to answer the phone at three in the morning. Hell, he's an old man (so am I) and we're noted for having insomnia. McCain would most likely be the only one awake at three in the morning ... probably trying to pee if experience is any measure.
President George W. Bush commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton's controversial "red phone" campaign ads at the White House today, telling reporters, "When that red phone rings, I just let it go straight to voicemail."
Mr. Bush rarely comments about the Democratic presidential contest, but he said that he had to speak up about Sen. Clinton's red phone ads because he found them "so confusing."
"If I answered the red phone every time it rang, I would never get any sleep," Mr. Bush said. "Sometimes it starts ringing at 9 PM, and I am already tucked in by then."
[...]
Elsewhere, Sen. John McCain released a new series of campaign ads, showing him answering a telegraph key at 3 A.M.
Get the whole bit after the click ...
My comment:
Hey, McCain is probably the best choice to answer the phone at three in the morning. Hell, he's an old man (so am I) and we're noted for having insomnia. McCain would most likely be the only one awake at three in the morning ... probably trying to pee if experience is any measure.
60 Minutes takes a look at the real state of our healthcare system
... and it isn't pretty.
In the richest country in the world, a country that prides itself on its generosity and its support of human rights, the real and functional attitude is "If you can't make a profit on 'em, f@&k 'em."
Watch the short version of the segment here. (The full version is available on the "60 Minutes" web site.)
We like to think we have the best health care possible here in the US but that's only for those who can afford it. For the rest, it's on par with the health care in Haiti ... maybe not as good. Now there's something to take pride in.
In the richest country in the world, a country that prides itself on its generosity and its support of human rights, the real and functional attitude is "If you can't make a profit on 'em, f@&k 'em."
Watch the short version of the segment here. (The full version is available on the "60 Minutes" web site.)
We like to think we have the best health care possible here in the US but that's only for those who can afford it. For the rest, it's on par with the health care in Haiti ... maybe not as good. Now there's something to take pride in.
Checking the odds
Many of the pundits seem to be calling the Clinton/Obama race "close" but I guess that means they haven't been paying attention to the betting odds floating around the Internet.
According to Intrade, the odds appear something on the order of 6:1 in favor of Obama. At least that's the collective wisdom of large groups and that doesn't sound like a close race to me.
The betting suggests voter turnout will be well over 60% and Obama will be the next President with a significant margin over the Republican front-runner, John McCain.
Just for the sake of comparison, voter turnout in 2006 was on the order of 41.3%; 2004 was about 55.7%; 2002 was about 39% and 2000 was about 54.2.
People paying more attention.
My feel-o-metric sense is that first time voters are registering in droves as Democrats and Independents while the sound of crickets prevails in the Republican sign-up line.
Now, given that we have the best government that money can buy, McCain raised about $12M in the last month to promote his agenda, Clinton brought home the bacon at about $35M and Obama's campaign suggests their number was somewhat north of $50M.
People voting with their wallets.
So, given a bunch of givens, I'd say this coming national election has all the earmarks of a landslide. The mandate is not going to be one of those 1.5% varieties that the Right trumpeted about in 2004 (they stoled the election in 2000, loosing the popular vote to Gore - granted by a slim margin). It's shaping up to be one of those 60%-40% routs that will be an unprecedented rebuke of everything the right wing-nuts who are trying to pass themselves off as conservatives stand for.
They've had an unprecedented set of circumstances with control of the White House for eight years and control of Congress for the last decade and a half with the exception of the last two years. They've had a chance to demonstrate the effectiveness of their philosophy, their so-called fiscal responsibility, their lip service to smaller government and their commitments to Family Values.
The last time such an opportunity to serve the nation came together was during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The legacy he left includes bringing this country out of a depression, winning a world war, and providing the people of this country a safety net in terms of a social security program (that the Republicans have been trying to dismantle for the last 65 years).
Republicans have taken this opportunity to guide the direction of this country and driven the bus into a ditch. Instead of winning a world war, they've taken us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that appears to have no end. Instead of bring us up and out of a depression, they've left the country in a recession, teetering on the brink of a depression (not unlike the one their President Hoover presided over in 1929). Instead of improving the lives of the people of this country, they've advocated policies that allow the super rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else. Their preference for profit over people has left 40 million human beings without health care and countless more with inadequate health care coverage in the richest nation on the planet.
They planned for a Republican majority that would last for 100 years by playing to special interests at the expense of the people of this county but they ended up setting themselves up for a long dry spell. They have put corporate interests and party politics ahead of national interests. Their knee-jerk embrace of ideological theory has prevented them from adopting pragmatic solutions. It will be generations before anyone trusts their judgment again.
According to Intrade, the odds appear something on the order of 6:1 in favor of Obama. At least that's the collective wisdom of large groups and that doesn't sound like a close race to me.
The betting suggests voter turnout will be well over 60% and Obama will be the next President with a significant margin over the Republican front-runner, John McCain.
Just for the sake of comparison, voter turnout in 2006 was on the order of 41.3%; 2004 was about 55.7%; 2002 was about 39% and 2000 was about 54.2.
People paying more attention.
My feel-o-metric sense is that first time voters are registering in droves as Democrats and Independents while the sound of crickets prevails in the Republican sign-up line.
Now, given that we have the best government that money can buy, McCain raised about $12M in the last month to promote his agenda, Clinton brought home the bacon at about $35M and Obama's campaign suggests their number was somewhat north of $50M.
People voting with their wallets.
So, given a bunch of givens, I'd say this coming national election has all the earmarks of a landslide. The mandate is not going to be one of those 1.5% varieties that the Right trumpeted about in 2004 (they stoled the election in 2000, loosing the popular vote to Gore - granted by a slim margin). It's shaping up to be one of those 60%-40% routs that will be an unprecedented rebuke of everything the right wing-nuts who are trying to pass themselves off as conservatives stand for.
They've had an unprecedented set of circumstances with control of the White House for eight years and control of Congress for the last decade and a half with the exception of the last two years. They've had a chance to demonstrate the effectiveness of their philosophy, their so-called fiscal responsibility, their lip service to smaller government and their commitments to Family Values.
The last time such an opportunity to serve the nation came together was during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The legacy he left includes bringing this country out of a depression, winning a world war, and providing the people of this country a safety net in terms of a social security program (that the Republicans have been trying to dismantle for the last 65 years).
Republicans have taken this opportunity to guide the direction of this country and driven the bus into a ditch. Instead of winning a world war, they've taken us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that appears to have no end. Instead of bring us up and out of a depression, they've left the country in a recession, teetering on the brink of a depression (not unlike the one their President Hoover presided over in 1929). Instead of improving the lives of the people of this country, they've advocated policies that allow the super rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else. Their preference for profit over people has left 40 million human beings without health care and countless more with inadequate health care coverage in the richest nation on the planet.
They planned for a Republican majority that would last for 100 years by playing to special interests at the expense of the people of this county but they ended up setting themselves up for a long dry spell. They have put corporate interests and party politics ahead of national interests. Their knee-jerk embrace of ideological theory has prevented them from adopting pragmatic solutions. It will be generations before anyone trusts their judgment again.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Don't Take That Rebate Check to Wal-Mart
By Al Norman
Wal-Mart is waiting for your check.
The world's largest retailer, which made $819,976 in sales every minute during the fourth quarter of its 2007 fiscal year, is expecting to see you walk through its doors with an IRS rebate check in your hands. But there is a more patriotic thing you can do.
Beginning this May, the U.S. Treasury will start sending "economic stimulus payments" to more than 130 million Americans. The vast majority of individuals who qualify for a stimulus payment will not have to do anything other than file their 2007 individual income tax return to receive their rebate. In most cases, the payment will equal the amount of tax liability on the return up to a maximum amount of $600 for individuals ($1,200 on a joint return) and a minimum of $300 for individuals ($600 on a joint return). The government made the same deal with taxpayers back in 2001, when the Treasury sent "advanced payment" checks of $300 to single tax filers and $600 for joint filers.
When you spend your rebate check at America's signature retailer, you are responding to the Government's stimulus like a true patriot. In a speech five days before Christmas of 2006, President George W. Bush said, "A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more."
The White House/Congressional economic stimulus package should be labeled for what it is: the Wal-Mart/Beijing Welfare Subsidy of 2008. The "stimulus" plan is an income transfer program from the U.S. Treasury, to Wal-Mart, and from there to its chief trading partner, China.
Find out the things you can do with that check that will actually benefit the American economy.
Wal-Mart is waiting for your check.
The world's largest retailer, which made $819,976 in sales every minute during the fourth quarter of its 2007 fiscal year, is expecting to see you walk through its doors with an IRS rebate check in your hands. But there is a more patriotic thing you can do.
Beginning this May, the U.S. Treasury will start sending "economic stimulus payments" to more than 130 million Americans. The vast majority of individuals who qualify for a stimulus payment will not have to do anything other than file their 2007 individual income tax return to receive their rebate. In most cases, the payment will equal the amount of tax liability on the return up to a maximum amount of $600 for individuals ($1,200 on a joint return) and a minimum of $300 for individuals ($600 on a joint return). The government made the same deal with taxpayers back in 2001, when the Treasury sent "advanced payment" checks of $300 to single tax filers and $600 for joint filers.
When you spend your rebate check at America's signature retailer, you are responding to the Government's stimulus like a true patriot. In a speech five days before Christmas of 2006, President George W. Bush said, "A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more."
The White House/Congressional economic stimulus package should be labeled for what it is: the Wal-Mart/Beijing Welfare Subsidy of 2008. The "stimulus" plan is an income transfer program from the U.S. Treasury, to Wal-Mart, and from there to its chief trading partner, China.
Find out the things you can do with that check that will actually benefit the American economy.
Let's Review
Let me see if I have a little understanding of what’s going on and where we’re at (as they say).
Fiscal policy for the better part of the last decade has driven the value of the dollar into the cellar, dropping it from .92 to .74 since November of 2005. Oil is traded in dollars so every smidgen of value the dollar looses makes it more expensive for us to buy oil and less expensive for people who count their money in Euros or Yen or Yuan, currencies which have held their value against the US dollar. The increases in oil prices, in turn, make it more expensive to transport goods from one place to another, to make fertilizer used to grow food, and to commute to work. And when we arrive at our jobs, we find that conservative tax policy has seen the CEO’s income increase by 47% while the people who do the actual work have seen their buying power shrink by something on the order of 5%.
Unrealistic tax cuts, which sound great at first blush, have forced us to borrow heavily from foreign powers to finance the most expensive war in the history of the planet. Servicing that ever increasing debt – three trillion by the time we’re done with it by some estimates – makes it impossible to maintain our infrastructure of roads and bridges, to promote the education we need to maintain a competitive edge in the future or even adequately fund our security systems. After all, the money has to come from somewhere and, if we're not financing our obligations with tax revenues, there aren't a heck of a lot of other options besides borrowing.
These policies further reward corporations for moving our manufacturing jobs overseas, undermining our manufacturing sector – the single most effective means for creating wealth, the most important anecdote to most of the problems that beset us.
The conservative approach to deregulation created an atmosphere where predatory lenders, selling the story that housing prices would continue to rise forever, could make usurious loans to the unsuspecting. The lenders told borrowers that when the balloon payments kicked in the borrower could always refinance or, better yet, sell the house and “buy up” on the illusionary increase in equity. And who needs verification of your income, anyway? The chickens have come home to roost and those policies will leave one third of the homes in the US in negative equity by the time we can install a new (and hopefully more rational) administration.
The net effect is that these policies have driven the country into a recession teetering on the verge of a depression (in spite of the administration’s happy talk and “blowing smoke up the ass” of anyone who’ll listen).
In the meantime a significant percentage of the population seems to think it’s a good idea to maintain these policies because part of the conservative package will protect us from the ravages of gay marriage? Are you friggin’ kidding me?!?! Did I use the phrase before – the image of lemmings drinking kool-aid?
Let me know if you think I got it wrong. I sure hope I did ... but I don't think so.
Fiscal policy for the better part of the last decade has driven the value of the dollar into the cellar, dropping it from .92 to .74 since November of 2005. Oil is traded in dollars so every smidgen of value the dollar looses makes it more expensive for us to buy oil and less expensive for people who count their money in Euros or Yen or Yuan, currencies which have held their value against the US dollar. The increases in oil prices, in turn, make it more expensive to transport goods from one place to another, to make fertilizer used to grow food, and to commute to work. And when we arrive at our jobs, we find that conservative tax policy has seen the CEO’s income increase by 47% while the people who do the actual work have seen their buying power shrink by something on the order of 5%.
Unrealistic tax cuts, which sound great at first blush, have forced us to borrow heavily from foreign powers to finance the most expensive war in the history of the planet. Servicing that ever increasing debt – three trillion by the time we’re done with it by some estimates – makes it impossible to maintain our infrastructure of roads and bridges, to promote the education we need to maintain a competitive edge in the future or even adequately fund our security systems. After all, the money has to come from somewhere and, if we're not financing our obligations with tax revenues, there aren't a heck of a lot of other options besides borrowing.
These policies further reward corporations for moving our manufacturing jobs overseas, undermining our manufacturing sector – the single most effective means for creating wealth, the most important anecdote to most of the problems that beset us.
The conservative approach to deregulation created an atmosphere where predatory lenders, selling the story that housing prices would continue to rise forever, could make usurious loans to the unsuspecting. The lenders told borrowers that when the balloon payments kicked in the borrower could always refinance or, better yet, sell the house and “buy up” on the illusionary increase in equity. And who needs verification of your income, anyway? The chickens have come home to roost and those policies will leave one third of the homes in the US in negative equity by the time we can install a new (and hopefully more rational) administration.
The net effect is that these policies have driven the country into a recession teetering on the verge of a depression (in spite of the administration’s happy talk and “blowing smoke up the ass” of anyone who’ll listen).
In the meantime a significant percentage of the population seems to think it’s a good idea to maintain these policies because part of the conservative package will protect us from the ravages of gay marriage? Are you friggin’ kidding me?!?! Did I use the phrase before – the image of lemmings drinking kool-aid?
Let me know if you think I got it wrong. I sure hope I did ... but I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)