Reuters: Bernenke Says Recession Could Last 10 Years
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
Fox News: Bernenke Says Recession Could End This Year
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
“America the Banana Republic” by Christopher Hitchens
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/10/hitchens200810
“Forgive and Forget?” by Paul Krugman
I got this email about “Why I am Voting Democrat.” The reasons were not very sound, so I replied with reasons why the author should instead be voting for the Republicans.
======================================
WHY I AM VOTING DEMOCRAT
>I’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
Then you should vote Republican, because they’re the ones that doubled the $5,000,000,000,000 debt after Clinton balanced the budget.
>I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
Then you should vote for Palin since she’s for trying to censor books at the library.
> I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.
Then you should vote Republican since they’re the ones bitching about Obama going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
> I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
Then you should vote Republican since they’re the ones who keep finding weather forecasters to talk about the completely unrelated topic of climate science instead of climate scientists.
>I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
Then you should vote Republican, because when the Health and Human Services redefines abortion to mean using any contraception, as they’ve proposed with the support of the religious right, the rate of real abortions is going to skyrocket.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion
>I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
Then you should vote Republican since it’s their deregulation and supply side policies that have ensured businesses will not be taking in much profit for the next few years.
> I’m voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
Then you should vote Republican since they’re the ones who want to rewrite the Constitution in order to exchange the right to pursue happiness with a conservative definition of marriage.
>I’m voting Democrat because I believe that open borders and government giveaways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation.
If you believe that, you must either be a Libertarian or a businessman who wants cheap labor, in which case you should vote Republican like they always do.
> I’m voting Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
Seeing how Biden has already promised that no one’s taking his guns away, you should vote Republican since you seem to have a lot in common with Dick Cheney.
>I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.
If you’re that interested in taboo sex and want to see more of it on t.v., you should vote for the Republicans since they not only have more sex scandals, but also pursued a $60 million investigation into Clinton’s sex scandal, or in the case of Newt Gingrich, both at the same time.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php
>I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
Then you probably would not have liked voting for Hillary if she had won, since she went along with McCain on the “gas tax holiday” that nearly every economist and even the Bush Administration said would only get pocketed by the oil companies. (Although one noted Libertarian economist, Bryan Caplan, said “we could do a lot worse”, adding that he agreed that it would not seriously reduce prices due to increased demand, but it would help distract the public with “a relatively cheap symbolic gesture that makes truly bad policies less likely”.)
>I’m voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butt it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.
Actually, the science journal Nature Neuroscience published a study last year showing that liberal brains are wired to be more adept at processing new information and dealing with and resolving conflicts than conservative brains. One would think that would be self-evident given the very definition of their names, but chalk this one up to science proving something we already knew.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
Ok, so McCain “suspended his campaign”, consisting of moving his appearance on David Letterman to a piece with Katie Couric. (McCain insiders say they are looking for another way to suspend the campaign; William Kristol has also called for a second suspension.) The rest of his campaign continued attacking Obama and McCain very slowly made it back to Washington to “lead” on the crisis even though he admitted he had not read the 3-page report on the crisis even after several days. Before he got there, we heard word that they discussions were going good, but soon after McCain got there, House Republicans rebelled. We know that Obama talked during the meeting and McCain didn’t. House Republicans tried to force Democrats to accept the elimination of the capital gains tax (which of course has nothing to do with the crisis) or watch the economy go into a downward spiral, which is pretty much like the cops joining the rioters they’re supposed to bring down and adding in their own demands. So the deal failed. The Dow fell about 780 points and the S&P dropped 8% (as a side note, we all know Phil “America are whiners” Gramm, but McCain’s other economist is Kevin Hassett, who wrote DOW 36,000 right before the Dot Com bubble burst). Now Republicans are blaming the failed vote on Nancy Pelosi giving a speech in which she said the problem was due to a failed economic philosophy of “anything goes” and McCain is blaming Obama and the Democrats for “putting politics ahead of country.”
Noah Millman writes:
> There are lots and lots of reasons not to like this bill. But most of those reasons are Democratic talking points. The GOP alternative proposal was borderline illiterate.
> I’m writing this in haste, without a lot of reflection. But the whole way this has played out has been something of a watershed moment for me. There is only one party in Congress that thinks we are in a financial crisis, only one party in Congress with a functioning leadership.
http://theamericanscene.com/2008/09/29/bluff-called
Megan McArdle writes:
> A journalist friend who spends way more time on politics than I do suggests that if the Democrats cave and include a capital gains tax, it will probably pass–but puts the odds of the Democrats caving at slim to none, since they can now blame any resulting crash on the Republicans.
> I didn’t think it was possible to be more disgusted with politicians than I usually am, but I find it impossible to express the seething contempt that I feel at this kind of opportunism. I don’t mind when they screw with the normal operation of the economy for venal personal gain. But risking a recession in order to get a cut in the capital gains tax? Letting it tank because you can always blame it on the Republicans?
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/so_what_happens_now.php
From Justin Fox, regarding House Republicans’ plan:
>…that of the House Republican Study Committee, seems to be a joke. It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to “encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets.” But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn’t be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?
The Lies of Palin
“Palin could not have asked her girls for permission to accept McCain’s veep offer if she also says she accepted the offer unblinkingly and right away. Palin did fire a police chief even as she insisted to a reporter she hadn’t. She did violate the confidential medical records of Mike Wooten. She hasn’t met with any trade missions from Russia. She does not have any gay friends that anyone can find. She did not oppose the Bridge to Nowhere. She did not sell that plane on eBay. Her Teleprompter did not fail in her convention speech. Alaska’s state scientists did not conclude that polar bears were in no danger. She did deny publicly that humans had anything to do with climate change.
“Alaska does not provide “nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy,” as she claimed. The gas pipeline she touts as her major “mission accomplished” has not broken ground and may never do so. She did not take a pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla. And on and on. Anyone with Google can check all of these out. Including reporters.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-odd-lies–5.html
I’ve heard a couple of people I know on the right describe their beliefs as “Libertarian”, but the policies they support seem to me to be a lot closer to Neo-Conservatism. There is a big gulf between Ron Paul and John McCain, so I decided to make a chart, so people know the difference:
· Libertarians are uber-doves. Neo-Cons are uber-hawks.
· Libertarians fear our government. Neo-Cons fear foreign governments.
· Libertarians are for isolationism. Neo-Cons are for expanding the empire.
· Libertarians believe we should not have entered the Second World War. Neo-Cons blame the Left for losing the Vietnam War.
· Libertarians are for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neo-Cons are for going into Iran and Georgia.
· Libertarians are obsessed with civil liberties. Neo-Cons are obsessed with demonizing Communism, despite the fact that their intellectual father, Irving Kristol, was a former Trotskyist.
· Libertarians inherited their tolerance for sexual taboos from Robert Heinlein and the hippie movement. Neo-Cons are 60s reactionaries who believe homosexuality and pornography brought down the Roman Empire.
· Libertarians are for ending the war on drugs. Neo-Cons believe the border patrol should shoot Mexican drug smugglers on sight while protecting inflated drug prices so that it can be used to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua or support Afghani poppy-growers.
· Libertarians are against sending foreign aid to Israel, along with every other country. Neo-Cons are for destroying any probable future threat to Israel.
· Libertarians are for completely opening the borders. Neo-Cons are for building a giant wall along the border and financing a mass relocation of illegal aliens.
· Libertarians believe it should be legal to burn the flag. Neo-Cons believe it’s un-American to not wear a flag pin made in China.
· Libertarians follow the Austrian school of economics based on Carl Menger’s Prinicples of Economics. Neo-Cons follow Supply Side economics based on a line graph Arthur Laffer scribbled on a napkin for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
· Libertarians believe in balancing the budget and want to go back to the gold standard, which would entail a massive gold buying program that would cause the value of the dollar to fall and the price of gold to rise, amounting to a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to those who own gold. Neo-Cons believe tax cuts increase government capital and spend more than Libertarians or Liberals on military budgets.
· Libertarians are hard-line economic Darwinists who would allow the banks to fail despite the financial consequences. Neo-Cons are corporate socialists who want to bail out all of Wall Street but allow the lax regulation that helped cause it to continue unabated.
Here’s a quick list of priorities for the four political positions:
Liberal: Save lives (capital punishment, etc.), help the poor, save money, defeat evil
Conservative: Save lives (pro-life, etc.), save money, defeat evil, help the poor
Libertarian: Save money, save lives, help the poor, defeat evil
Neo-Conservative: Defeat evil, save lives, help the poor, save money
“[Conservatism] is so influenced by business culture and by business modes of thinking that it lacks any political imagination, which has always been, I have to say, a property of the Left…. What’s the point of being the greatest, most powerful nation in the world and not having an imperial role? It’s unheard of in human history. The most powerful nation always had an imperial role…. [Previous empires were not] capitalist democracies with a strong emphasis on economic growth and economic prosperity…. It’s too bad, I think it would be natural for the United States… to play a far more dominant role in world affairs. Not what we’re doing now but to command and to give orders as to what is to be done. People need that. There are many parts of the world—Africa in particular—where an authority willing to use troops can make a very good difference, a healthy difference…. [But with public discussion dominated by accountants] there’s the Republican Party tying itself into knots. Over what? Prescriptions for elderly people? Who gives a damn? I think it’s disgusting that… presidential politics of the most important country in the world should revolve around prescriptions for elderly people. Future historians will find this very hard to believe. It’s not Athens. It’s not Rome. It’s not anything.” -Irving Kristol, Father of Neo-Conservatism and William Kristol
“The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top rate from 70 to 50 percent—the rest of it is a secondary matter. The original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that’s having the most devastating effect on the economy. Then, the general argument was that, in order to make this palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all the brackets. But, I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.” -David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s budget director
“None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers…” -David Stockman
“Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. [The Administration’s] basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did.” -David Stockman
“Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” -John Kenneth Galbraith, economist
“The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.” – Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695
“You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.” -Dick Cheney
“It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.” -George W. Bush
“You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.” -Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist on Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004
Recent Interview With McCain on 60 Minutes:
Pelley: “In 1999 you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?”
McCain: “No, I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin