I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Didn't you already post this?
One thing that's always bothered me is that supporters of the Laffer Curve seem to think it's really the Laffer Slope. To listen to them [hey Grover, if the shoe fits . . .] one would think that as tax rates fall revenue climbs to the point that as tax rates approach zero the federal receipts approach infinity. Unfortunately Laffer suggests a point of diminishing returns, a point we seem to have hit around a trillion dollars ago.
Unfortunately Laffer suggests a point of diminishing returns, a point we seem to have hit around a trillion dollars ago.
Sorry, Thumb dude--you're a Secular Liberal™, and so you just don't understand differential equations 'n' stuff as well as those hard-eyed followers of Norquemada. Better leave the analysis to them.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans will find someway to blame the Democrats in Congress for the high spending total.
Shiiiiit.
A blind monkey could get credit for propping up an economy in the short term if he/she had that much money to hand out.
All is going according to the plan. Cripple the US so badly that they can get away with completely dismantling Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. 'Cause it's either that or Banana Republic and bankruptcy.
Hey!...I bet this has something to do with why the deficit is so bad, huh? Can't fool me.
Meanwhile, the world's second oil producer considers switching oil exports to EUROs. Keep up with the Banana Republic economics and diplomacy, Smirk.
http://
www.money.telegraph.co.uk...xfrontcity.html
All is going according to the plan.
Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller fame, has a good article on misdirection here." He talks about how it's the little lie that sells the big lie. Funny that he's a Cato Institute fellow. Misdirection is their specialty. We're watching as the Republican "magicians" try to make HUD, DOE, EPA and any other federal program started since the turn of the 20th century disappear.
Incase link is bloggered: http://www.latimes.com/news/opin...omment-
opinions
didn't pre-war Iraq signal they were going to switch to the euro, too? wasn't this one of the hidden reasons for PNAC to invade?
can we expect an amassing of troops along a certain border or two in the near future?
i feel really happy about this. didn't Dean talk about the encirclement theory on that fateful MTP appearance in June?
Should we blame Gray Davis for this too?
Sorry to change subject, but your govt may have to get even bigger.....
CNN Is reporting that,.... The Shias have declared Iraq an Islamic state. I guess Sharon will now have to add Iraq to the list of countries he has to attack.......Tell me ,do you think he will let your boys and girls leave first?
CNN Is reporting that,.... The Shias have declared Iraq an Islamic state.
That can't be good news.
Unless the people of Iraq decide that's what they want.
Remember how your great leader, and our great leader were telling us how wonderfull things were going to be for woman in Afganistan. Well I wonder how they are going to spin this one in Iraq.
From what I have read, most woman are afraid to leave their own homes now. So if Iraq becomes an Islamic state, gawd help them!
I wonder if this was in Rumsfield's great plan?
Unless the people of Iraq decide that's what they want.
Uh, that's not really part of the plan, you know.
Republican fiscal genius at work. What does it tell us that the American media have been through the past twenty-three years, seen the idiocy of Republican economics, seen unrivaled prosperity under Clinton, seen it unraveled by Bush II yet they make believe Republican economics is brilliant. Among other things it tells us that they are a bunch of rich greedballs who don't care as long as they've got theirs. It also shows us they are stupid Republican shills.
It's those poor decision-making powers that got them into this mess. Or something.
Wait, I can't remember - was I talking about Iraq or Bushco?
This will rip the nipple rings from the Bushco chest
http://www.sky.com/skynews/
artic...2818660,00.html
IRAQ PLUNGED INTO TURMOIL
Iraq's Shi'ite leader claims he has formed a new government which will begin operating immediately.
Moqtada Sadr's announcement came at the end of a week of protests directed at the US-led coalition forces.
Sadr, who has rejected the country's US-instigated Governing Council, has created a list of ministries, although he has not named any ministers.
Will this revolution be televised?
I hate to sound like a kook but let me put on my tinfoil hat a moment:
I think they meant to do this all along, hand out the surpluss to their cronies and then say, "Shoot folks, we're all out of green, so well, hate to do this to you old, poor and sick folk, but we're repealing the New Deal. What's that you say? No sorry we need to fund our soldiers in You understand. Thanks."
If these Oil Barons get a second term, we will be the world's largest banana republic by 2008. Of cours eby then they'll have pushed through the amendment allowing Arnold to become president, or "missed" that terrorist with the dirty bomb and just declare Martial law so President fancy pants can remain President for Life.
So what do you think? Am I a loon? Partially right or what?
Look at me! Look at me!! LOOK AT ME!!!
That article confused me. Are things good, or are they bad?
Jorge,
What you're talking about is known as "starve the beast" conservatives who, since the days of David Stockman, have made it a not-so-secret agenda to bankrupt the US back to the days before Roosevelt. And some conservatives mean Teddy, not FDR. Now Tom DeLay wants to push through a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget which means they'll be forced by law to either cut these programs or raise taxes. Guess which option they'll choose.
So, no, you're not loony. You may be wearing a tinfoil hat, but it's not because of this.
And yet, with enough PR like Cheney's hellfire and brimstone "thank god for Bush" speech at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, many people will be afraid to vote against BushCo next year.
The Shias have declared Iraq an Islamic state.
I read about that on IslamOnline a few hours ago. Sadr heads the "thousands strong Mehdi Army", which should give the CPA and Governing Council pause:
"We are ready to sacrifice our souls for you, Sadr," they chanted as they roamed the streets of the city, 180 kilometers (110 miles) south of Baghdad.
But Sadr has apparently asked people to demonstrate peacefully. That said, when push comes to shove, they will be a powerful, violent force if necessary. Just as the CSIS, we had until right about now to get our act together. Instead, we screwed the pooch and the Shia, our natural, if skeptical, allies have lost patience. Translation: we're truly fucked.
Translation: we're truly fucked.
And on the very same weekend that Bush is giving his six interviews pushing the "Good News in Iraq" meme.
The man can't catch a break.
Jorge --
Krugman's been saying the very same thing for months. You're not crazy. It's them.
But taxes are for little people.
All is going according to the plan. Cripple the US so badly that they can get away with completely dismantling Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. 'Cause it's either that or Banana Republic and bankruptcy.
Julie O.
The choice will be between banana republic and armed revolution. Social Security and Medicare are NOT going away. Those are ~middle class~ entitlements.
If the truly unthinkable occurs, and we can no longer afford those entitlements, then there is no reason not to move on to the equally unthinkable violent revolution. It wasn't unthinkable during the Depression, which is why Social Security, welfare, unemployment and the SEC exist in the first place.
Norquist is an idiot, and should find himself hung from a lamppole somewhere.
The man can't catch a break.
Neither can our troops. I sure wouldn't want to be in the middle of ethno-religious warfare.
The choice will be between banana republic and armed revolution.
Hmm...can't I have another option? Isn't there a Potpourri category, Alex?
And yet there seems to be not a peep out of the would-be fiscal conservatives in the Republican party.
Fiscal conservatism is only important when Democrats are in power.
NTodd,
You could pray really really hard. That the revolution will be quick and realatively bloodless. For our side.
> Federal tax receipts relative to the overall economy have reached their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president...
Are you implying that this is a bad thing? Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lowered the income tax rates and reduced taxes relative to the overall economy, *but* this caused the economy to boom and tax revenues went up in absolute terms. I consider this to be "a good thing," don't you? This may or may not happen with Bush's tax cuts, but the economy improving at a time when Bush's cuts are taking effect is a good sign.
> ...while government spending has climbed to the highest point since Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over...
This is indeed a bad thing. BobNJ is wrong when he says "there seems to be not a peep out of the would-be fiscal conservatives in the Republican party." Anger in the party toward Bush about this matter exists and is growing. By all means, let's criticize Bush when he deserves it, but let's also stick to the truth.
NTodd, You could pray really really hard.
Shit. We agnostic Quakers are not known for praying. How 'bout sacrificing a chicken or something?
Anger in the party toward Bush about this matter exists and is growing.
Yes, real conservatives are starting to realize that Bush doesn't share their principles. I'm wondering if he has any real principles at all.
Neither can our troops. I sure wouldn't want to be in the middle of ethno-religious warfare.
Ya think Bush is thinking about them as he spews his propaganda.?
He's so insensitive. Such a poor president. So out of touch.
Step 1: Increase spending and reduce income.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Fiscal conservatism!
*but* this caused the economy to boom
unsupported assertion taking credit for the natural business cycle.
See this for a counter-argument.
How about sacrificing a few chickenhawks?
Republicans are the party of "fiscal conservatism"; Democrats are spendtrifts.
Democrats gave us surpluses so large the Republicans said we should "give the money back to the people" despit ethe fact that the mortgage still hadn't been paid. Within three years of Republican fiscal conservatism we have enorMOUS deficits. As far as the eeyee can seeeeeeee.
The military hates Democrats because their soft, so the military vote for the Republicans who get them killed.
It all makes perfect sense. It's all completely logical. Goodnight, Alice.
"they're" soft
I'm sloppy
G'night, Me.
> Yes, real conservatives are starting to realize that Bush doesn't share their principles.
There are several kinds of conservatives (can you guess which kind I am?) and I don't see how you can call just one of them "real." Bush campaigned that he was not a typical conservative (and added that he would be a "compassionate" one). NTodd, are you complaining that Bush is keeping this promise?
> I'm wondering if he has any real principles at all.
Of course he does. Isn't this thread largely about his principle that taxes should be cut, and that he has succeeded in implementing this principle? This was another campaign promise, BTW. He clearly has other principles, but is unable to implement them all.
Troy, your link does not seem to lead to any "counter-argument." Where can I read it?
I'd like to suggest a new title for Bush: "The Man Who Ruined America".
s/n:r
NTodd, are you complaining that Bush is keeping this promise?
I guess I am.
I wouldn't say he has principles. He has objectives. Crappy ones.
Ya think Bush is thinking about them as he spews his propaganda.?
Oh sure. He's thinking: "I got the military vote locked up!" That's Karl keeps telling him, anyway. Good thing Bush doesn't read the news.
How about sacrificing a few chickenhawks?
That's a sacrifice I would be glad to make. Great idea.
To Ad Absurdum:
"Instead, the indirect political repercussions of conflict were what caused oil prices to surge.This time around, Arab leaders have warned that an invasion of Iraq would open the "gates of hell."That doesn't sound good for the oil market."(PK,Stocks and Bombs,Sep. 13,2002)
So, why should the "hell", metaphorically translated, not be the same as a switching of the oil exports to euro's?
"Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lowered the income tax rates and reduced taxes relative to the overall economy, *but* this caused the economy to boom"
It did? But I thought that the rate of GDP expansion under Reaganomics was barely half of the 4% growth achieved under Clinton. Maybe the real secret is that under Clinton we added 23,000,000 + new jobs. Under Bush we have lost 3 million jobs in manufacturing alone.
BTW, click for an interesting article on exporting jobs to India.
Somtimes I wonder if, bad as these bozos are, it could have been worse -- that they could have been evil and competent? I'm not sure that would have been worse. It might have just been Nixon.
But their incompetence is nothing short of brain-wrenching. If we had a responsible press their approval ratings would be, well, worse than Tony Blair's, since Tony can actually put reasonable sentences together in his own defense.
...and under Clinton the marginal tax rate on the highest earners was raised over the objection of (nearly?) ever Republican in Congress who claimed with the certainty of Jesus Christ that a recession would ensue.
Can you spell "discredited"?
Clinton boom; Bush bust.
The choice will be between banana republic and armed revolution.
Hmm...can't I have another option? Isn't there a Potpourri category, Alex?
No.
Reread Krugman. Then remember, he is an economist. Economists are not in the habit of considering social instability as an option.
At that point, it will depend on how politically astute the existing admininstration is. Hoover wasn't. FDR was.
Bush clearly isn't. Tom Delay certainly isn't. I'm not sure about Frist. More than likely, anyone who can survive the Republican nomination process will not be able to handle the situation that is coming.
George Herbert Hoover Bush
"Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lowered the income tax rates and reduced taxes relative to the overall economy, *but* this caused the economy to boom"
Of course, in 1983 the Reagan Admininstration was responsible for a sharp increase in the FICA taxes, requiring most of us to pay more as a percentage and on a higher maximun income. That more than offset the reduction in the income tax.
EPT:
You slander a President of the United States of America.
Hoover's mother wouldn't appreciate that!
If the "Cabal" neocons put an end to Social Security,Ill just live in a cardboard box and eat tree bark.But the real question is:Can a person living on tree bark hold the rifle steady enough to hit the target?
Ronald Reagan doubled the tax on capital gains (you know, the mechanism by which non-rich people actually get rich in this country), and his unprecedently irresponsible deficits left us with forbidding interest rates (don't you wish you could flash back to 1989 and get those T-bills at 10%?). And oh yeah, going from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor did wonders for our national sovereignty - NOT. He DID cut the top income tax rates, which at 70% were too high, but 39% isn't, as Clinton showed.
If the "Cabal" neocons put an end to Social Security,Ill just live in a cardboard box and eat tree bark.But the real question is:Can a person living on tree bark hold the rifle steady enough to hit the target?
notch | 10.11.03 - 9:31 pm | #
Don't worry. Just give me the location of your cardboard box. I'll bring crabcakes and wine.
Just to let you folks know...
I found the blog of a dude who posts some of the most hateful, anti-semite, bigotrous crap I've ever seen in cyberprint. He needs to be spammed out of existance. He can be found at:
badonicus.blogspot.com
NTodd above mentioned the Cheney goes ballistic speech at Heritage. WaPO had a good story today at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Oct10.html
I couldn't believe the picture they ran with it, it's a hoot!
dm - that pic is funny! You should also see the AP photo CNN ran with yesterday. Scary...
Sorry, off topic but some racist remarks from the link below:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamihe...rts/
6985911.htm
The important thing to note is that the uber-hawks speak only at Heritage and AEI and other uber-friendly places. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and these guys definitely hide their lights under a bushel. To mash biblical metaphor.
They simply can't stand the light. I hear Rummy doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror, either.
He needs to be spammed out of existance
It's a free country. Why get involved in something you can safely ignore?
Rory:
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherm...n/
rushmore.html
The short answer is that:
a) the business cycle
b) Volcker lowering rates
c) cheap oil
was responsible for the increase in GDP, not voodoo economics.
But I do think that "feel goodism" has something to do with recovery too, and the Reaganites deserve some credit for projecting confidence (instead of despair, which was a leit motif of the late 70's).
ot, but this is shocking
US soldiers bulldoze farmers' crops
Americans accused of brutal 'punishment' tactics against villagers, while British are condemned as too soft
By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya
12 October 2003
US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.
complete article at
http://news.independent.co.uk/wo...sp?
story=452375
davids - Great, ain't it? From the IslamOnline article on the subject:
A tall man standing behind the crowd suddenly raises a warning finger and says: "Some people who lost their fields are begging, others are stealing cars, but now that we have nothing to do, maybe we will join the resistance.
"Is this what the Americans want?"
As I noted on my blog this morning, I'm sure things are better in Iraq than I probably think.
"collective punishment"
This is why I knew any occupation would fail. Plenty of "Ruby Ridge" militia types resent the "Jack Booted Thug" Fed mentality operating over here, just imagine how the Iraqis are taking this -- the humiliations, the nighttime sweeps, the over-arching condescension on our nation-building do-gooders.
Actually, you don't have to imagine, since we get daily reports of their reprisals.
Concerned,
Curious, I went to that blog you said should be spammed. Now I have to take a shower.
To everyone else: Don't go there. It will make you want to bitch slap the ignorant chuckleheaded bigot.
You know what astonishes me? That people get *paid* to write shit like this, "The Deficit Chicken Hawks":
But the biggest misconception about deficits is that, by themselves, they threaten the economy's long-term vitality. Not true. The real threat is rising government spending. -- WaPo, 10/10/03
And the next day, you can find *this* story in the middle of the A section:
Tax revenue at 44-year low in proportion to U.S. economy
"A sluggish economy and three successive tax cuts pushed 2003 tax receipts to $1.78 trillion, $70 billion less than in the previous year. Expressed as percentage of the economy, the federal tax take fell to 16.6 percent, the lowest level since 1959.
Tax revenue has now fallen for three successive years, which hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Since receipts peaked in 2000, they have fallen by $242 billion, or 12 percent." -- WaPo, 10/11/03
When did being a conservative mean never having to admit you're wrong?
Someone needs to haul out old Ross Perot's charts and graphs about budget deficits. The public got it then, they can get it again.
Islamic Republic? Moqtada Sadr's talking loud right now, but I suspect that means he's fading as a force in the Shia community. That doesn't mean the Bush regime can rest easy about the 60% of Iraq that is Shia. When the mainstream Shia leaders around Najaf and Karbala decide that they are sufficiently organized and prepared to take power, the occupation will be rather summarily ousted. Sadr's 10,000 after Friday sermon is nothing. When the main Shia leadership is ready to move, the demonstrations will be in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions.
And the US seems intent on jamming the Turks down the Governing Quisling Council's throat. Well, that should help stabilize things nicely, and strengthen our friendships among the Iraqi people.
Yessir Mr President, things indeed are looking up in Iraq!
You know, I may be a grammar junkie, but it honestly took me ten seconds to realize that the link was supposed to say "Nice going, guys". Before that I was trying to parse it as some nice guys who were going...somewhere, and it just looked really odd.
Listen, there is a pretty huge difference between "Eat, my friends" and "Eat my friends".
Are you implying that this is a bad thing? Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lowered the income tax rates and reduced taxes relative to the overall economy, *but* this caused the economy to boom and tax revenues went up in absolute terms.
No, they did not. cf Krugman -- they may have been a slight boost, but most of this was due to the rapid increase of production that happens after every recession. The primary difference was the easy money policy of the Fed, whose tight money policy intentionally caused the recession anyways.
Listen, there is a pretty huge difference between "Eat, my friends" and "Eat my friends".
1st uses an imperative mood verb and vocative case nouns.
2nd uses an imperative mood verb and accusative case nouns.
Ah, the benefits of inflecting the nouns ...
EPT -- There's one thing The Hoov had that Bush ain't got, and that's that Hoov at least had a brain. He was a lousy president, admittedly, but he was a good engineer, and a kick-ass medieval scholar. His translation (Latin to English) of Agricola's De Re Metallica (On Metals) is still considered to be canonical today among people who care about such things. I doubt Bush could do that. Some days I think he has a hard enough time translating English into English.
Speaking of which, damn, Diamond, you are one hard-core grammar Nazi, and I say that as a rhetorician with a Master's degree (Language and Professional Writing, University of Waterloo, class of '99). (Unfortunately, one of the things I never mastered was the case name set in English. Considering that most people don't even know that English has a subjunctive -- but if you all were to ask, I would tell you what it was -- you're really something else. I tip my peaked leather cap.)
I got an idea about what to do with these cheap-labour conservatives, well, one of them, anyway: Let's drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub. (I have a Victorian clawfoot -- do you guys think that's big enough?)
Curious, I went to that blog you said should be spammed. Now I have to take a shower.
To everyone else: Don't go there. It will make you want to bitch slap the ignorant chuckleheaded bigot.
Yeah, out of curiosity I went to look at it also. I need to go douse myself in lysol. Icky.
Wow, mood and case getting the shout-outs...
"Nouns"? But... but... "my" is a pronoun... (all right, I'm splitting hairs mighty fine...)
And in English we do that furrin' inflection stuff with syntax, pard'ner, hence the importance of punctuation.
Considering that most people don't even know that English has a subjunctive -- but if you all were to ask, I would tell you what it was
That is the geekiest joke ever. Since I laughed, I guess I'm the biggest geek ever.
sorry kim, unless you bomb Tokyo, the cracker in the WH box ain't gonna pay attention to you. Now jr wants to bring his brand of 'democracy' to Cuba. what a bunch of lucky duckies. at he swell!
"But I thought that the rate of GDP expansion under Reaganomics was barely half of the 4% growth achieved under Clinton"
Wrong! When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%. The average growth for the eight Clinton years was 3.55%, and it was part of the last expansion period. So the Reagan expansion growth was better than the last expansion by almost a full percent per year.
The problem now is that Bush dosen't have a fiscally responsible bone in his body, and the Republicans in congress who are, on the whole, much more frugal then the Dems have given way to Bush where they were very tight with Clinton and the current economy shows the effects
Miles has nailed it. The Bush "economic policy" was formulated by none other than.....
THE UNDERPANTS GNOMES!!!!!!!!
Step 1: Cut taxes and spend like there's no tomorrow.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: ECONOMIC PROSPERITY!!!
David Stockman 1993 wrtoe this when Clinton turned us away from right wing fiscal insanity. Even the guy who designed Reagan's supply side deceit admits it doesn't work.
In this regard, the full-throated, anti-tax cries emanating from the Republican Party (GOP) amount to no more than deceptive gibberish. Indeed, if Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and his playmates had the parental supervision they deserve, they would be sent to the nearest corner wherein to lodge their Pinocchio-sized noses until this adult task of raising taxes is finished.
....
The root problem goes back to the July, 1981, frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax-cutting that shattered the nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance, and their own culpability in it, ever since. Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom, while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit.
Why are you guys knocking Reagan? Growth was OK under Reagan... about average for postwar presidents. Not bad at all.
It just cost us 2 trillion in debt for Reagan to do it.
here's the link for above quote
http://www.csulb.edu/~astevens/p...s/
stockman2.htm
"Why are you guys knocking Reagan? Growth was OK under Reagan... about average for postwar presidents."
Actually, it was the highest of the postwar administrations. Record job creation as well. Also, the 2nd Reagan term saw the emergence of the first statistically significant Black and Hispanic upper-middle income groups.
Thanks, ?!
I laughed too, Thersites; you may be the biggest geek ever, but you're not the only one around. I hate being commanded, so I caution acquaintances to avoid the imperative voice. They never>/i> get it.
I don't see the downside of the next Democratic candidate running as the advocate of fiscal sanity. By no means does it take the Keynesian tools off the table - a deficit is desirable during a recession, but the budget has to balance or better at full employment. The tax system has to be designed to achieve this, and it did during the previous administration.
The tax cuts are so heavily skewed to the wealthiest that it ought to be an easy sell to the 95% of the country whose taxes were hardly affected.
Package it as a "sane revenue policy". The evidence that the Bush tax cuts are running America off the rails is incontrovertible. "The federal government is borrowing over a billion dollars a day! This can't go on!"
"US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops." From Patrick Cockburn's article... what I cannot understand with this, is why the US would do this to a malnourished country that does not have enough food or jobs, already... This is remniscent of the Isrealis bulldozing the orange groves and more recent, bulldozing the olive groves of the Palestinians. Do the right wingers REALLY think this is good behavior??? I don't care how many people are hiding in those groves... Intended Mass Destruction of someone else's property is a Hate Crime.... This is worse than someone going out and beating your car into smithereens. That person would get their free ride to jail... In these bulldozing situations, they are depriving the owners of a way to sustain themselves and/or others!!!
Right wing economics, wonder why the moonster has financed the extremists in conservative the movemnent? Wonder why he molded the conservatives into what he wanted?
Moon is laughing his ass off at the conservative chumps he uses. Too bad they are dragging the rest of us off the cliff with them...only a matter of time...hell he's even handed out membership cards so 'they' will know one another. hahaha Bet George and all the conservative saps didn't get one.
http://search.csmonitor.com/dura...p18s1-
csm.shtml
"When I was a leader in the group, (Moon) literally talked about taking over the world and setting up a theocracy," Mr. Hassan says. "He said there would be an economic collapse and he would have an infrastructure set up, with the media, businesses, food, education, politics."
Whatever gains Reagan era policy gave us was offset by deregulated policies causing monopoly prices and savings and loan foreclosures. It was short term solutions to long term problems. The Republicans took over a "solvent" economy and Federal budget and have ,so far, train wrecked it into the far future. The only way to regain all those lost jobs is to support small business growth like Clinton did. This also happens to be Howard Dean's agenda. Good for him.
I say, kill all the conservatives..and let God sort them out..
Actually, it was the highest of the postwar administrations.
If you are going to use stats at least be honest. Aside from the 83-84 spike which followed a deep recession growth under reagan was not better than clinton, and the highest postwar growth was probably kennedy/johnson if not eisenhower.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp.../
economics.html
Jesus god damn, the bulldozing of fruit trees etc.
So tell me what's keeping these psycho freaks from just dropping a huge nuclear bomb on Iraq for "pacification" sometime next month?
God bless America my ass. God and all the gods have so abandoned this country to madness and evil and slumber.
Dear Interrobang,
I know, I was on the point of buying the Dover edition once, saw who translated it and drew back my hand.
In addition to both being economic geniuses, here's another thing that Herbert H. and Little Bush had in common. Both were chicken hawks of the worst kind. I seem to remember that during a bloody siege in the Boxer rebellion* Herbert could be found down in the cellar with the women while all of the other men were trying to keep them all from being killed. He might have had the excuse that he was a "Quaker", except that Hoover also was a great advocate for dropping the Bombs on Japan. He's the source for that number of a million allied soldiers dead from an invasion of Japan. As I've read this is a figure that he dreamed up all by himself and that none of the generals dealing with the matter believed it. It became a real, true fact alter, when remorse set in.
Sort of reminds me of a certain radio host. Actually quite a number of those.
* The westerners should have stayed the hell out of China to begin with.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
---------------------------
Now please remind me again how great a president Truman was.
Breaking News: Twin car bombing in central Baghdad kills at least ten outside Baghdad Hotel/CIA headquarters. Check cable news channels, latest online stories here.
Is the argument that Hoover didn't understand the implications of his numbers?
By that time it was apparent that if Japan didn't surrender then the alternatives were bombing, conventional or otherwise or an invasion. If Hoover supplied a wildly high casualty figure for an invasion he wasn't stupid enough to believe that Truman wouldn't have bombed. A very odd thing for a Quaker boy to be speculating on in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if Hoover didn't have some inkling that a new bomb was in the offing, but that's only speculation on my part.
If he was horrified with the results after the fact, well who wasn't?
I'd not want to excite the mighty motors of the Hoover hagiography machine so early on a Sunday morning but it's truly stunning the efforts that have been made to protect the memory of a minor, failed president. He started the process himself, by the end of the 30s he'd have had a full appreciation for what was later called deniability.
Won't argue for Truman, my opinion is close to I.F. Stone's. Wish FDR had come up with someone else.
Bringing up old Mac. gives me a third area if similarity beteen Little Bush and Hoover, treatment of veterans.
But don't get me started on the Bonus Army.
Now please remind me again how great a president Truman was.
He would at least take responsibility for the decision to drop the A-Bomb. Bush would blame George Tenet for bad intel.
"All is going according to the plan. Cripple the US so badly that they can get away with completely dismantling Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare."
You forget about destroying public education which is already taking the hit from President Pinocchio's deficits, and which is being set up to fail in more ways than just financally.
It is class warfare pure and simple: the uber-wealthy keeping the masses uneducated and afraid for their future so they are most easily manipulated and taken advantage of.
EPT, the argument is simply that Hoover was not (as you claimed) "a great advocate for dropping the Bombs on Japan."
I'm not saying he was a great president. What I am saying is that you were completely wrong about who did and who did not support the dropping of the Bomb. Perhaps you should take just a moment for research before making such wild claims.
Yesterday, Interrobang said:
Let's drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub. (I have a Victorian clawfoot -- do you guys think that's big enough?)
That is just brilliant!
Roderick - are you forgetting that Reagan had to pass some of the largest tax *increases* in history in order to aid that prosperity?
I'm just glad you aren't assailing us with the old canard that tax increases cause revenue increases.
Sorry, that should be tax cuts cause revenue increases.
If the "Cabal" neocons put an end to Social Security,Ill just live in a cardboard box and eat tree bark.But the real question is:Can a person living on tree bark hold the rifle steady enough to hit the target?
notch,
With an AK-47 you don't really have to aim. It's like a disposable camera: point and shoot.
EPT, the argument is simply that Hoover was not (as you claimed) "a great advocate for dropping the Bombs on Japan."
Electrolux
Hoover was a part of the decision to drop bombs on Japan. Since his figure was used as justification after the fact and since his figure if taken seriously, and just how seriously Truman took it, we don't know, would have been a compelling argument in favor of bombing vs. invasion, I don't see the distinction. Truman thought quite a bit of Hoover, that we do know. Maybe this is an indication of the wieght his opinion would have had. Truman liked Stalin more than Degaull too.
The implications of Hoover's involvement with this in view of his background are not nice to think about.
Using the name Hoover instead of Electrolux would perhaps have been more of a vote of confidence in your man. My great-aunt's electrolux sill works, Hoover's program didn't.
EPT, you need to supply a reference for Hoover's providing of this mortality figure. Otherwise I cannot take it seriously.
Furthermore, Hoover is not "my man."
The reason that I am replying to you is that I am really annoyed about this bizarre idea you are spreading: that Hoover (one of the very few pacifist US presidents) was actually a hawk, and was in fact responsible for Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on human targets.
If you want to say he was a chicken, sure, go right ahead. But to call him a hawk shows a profound ignorance of history. It's about as accurate as calling Jimmy Carter a hawk.
EPT, I was worried that you just might be right, so I have done some research for you. Primary sources:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hoover/
documents.html?page=1
(1): 05-30-1945 Memorandum, Herbert Hoover to Harry S. Truman, May 30, 1945, concerning Hoover’s thoughts on how the war with Japan should be ended.
(2): 06-13-1945 Memorandum, Joseph Grew to Harry S. Truman, June 13, 1945, analyzing Hoover’s memorandum on Japan.
In (1), Hoover says the only necessary features of a Japanese surrender are the ceding of Manchuria and some Pacific islands, complete military disarmament, and the surrendering of war criminals. He says that it is not worth "500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives" to achieve more.
Furthermore, he suggests that to ease a surrender, the Allies declare that Japan may be allowed to keep its government (i.e., no American occupation), Korea, and Formosa (Taiwan), as well as to note that the Japanese government faces certain destruction if it does not accept.
In (2), Grew says that Hoover's suggested concessions are unacceptable due to prior international agreements. He also says that a blockade to contain Japan is not a good long-term solution. Most importantly, he says that Japan's militarism is so ingrained that Japan must be occupied and the population re-educated.
I think it's clear that Hoover did not have a big influence over Truman's decision-making at this point: he had met with Truman only once, and sent a few memos, which apparently had no real influence on policy.
I don't think Hoover knew about the A-bomb. (Supposedly, Truman didn't even know until he succeeded Roosevelt.) It looks to me like document (1) is Hoover's attempt to get Truman to end the war as quickly as possible and with minimal loss of life. He brings up a rough estimate of potential casualties as a cost to be weighed aginst the benefit of liberating Korea and Formosa, not as an argument to bomb Japan.
Regarding the origin of the casualties figure: please see http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/
study_collections/bomb/large/ferrell_book/
ferrell_book_chap18.htm, in which Truman claims that:"I asked Gen. Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokyo plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that 1/4 million casualties would be the minimum cost as well as an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed."
Your statement that "Hoover also was a great advocate for dropping the Bombs on Japan" sure looks like it's totally wrong.
"Aside from the 83-84 spike which followed a deep recession growth under reagan was not better than clinton"
No way. When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%. The average growth for the eight Clinton years was 3.55%, and it was part of the last expansion period. So the Reagan expansion growth was better than the last expansion by almost a full percent per year. The graph in the link you provided shows nothing different. Also, see: http://www.presidentreagan.info/gdp.cf
"Whatever gains Reagan era policy gave us was offset by deregulated policies causing monopoly prices..."
What?? To what prices prices to you refer?
Deregulation causes prices to go down not up. Look at the history of the airlines. Often, deregulation is OPPOSED by large economic interests.
"...support small business growth like Clinton did. This also happens to be Howard Dean's agenda. Good for him."
Small business growth is enhanced with lower taxes ( especially lower tax RATES) and deregulation. (What is Dean's plan?) These things happened under both Reagan and Clinton. But under Clinton it was because the GOP congress restrained spending and regulation. They have not resisted Bush's big spending, big government agenda in the same way. But, they have shown signs they will if we prod them.
jesse:
"Roderick - are you forgetting that Reagan had to pass some of the largest tax *increases* in history"
Reagan passed large tax rate cuts which fueled the record expansion. To what "largest tax *increases* in history" do you refer?
"I'm just glad you aren't assailing us with the old canard that tax decreases cause revenue increases."
The effect of lower taxes is often revenue increases;see: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/...ct/
reagtxct.htm
But, thats not the best reason to implement lower taxes. Increased individual discresion and increased prosperity are the best reasons.
davids, that story about the fields being bulldozed cant possibly be true. there is no way they were blaring jazz.
Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lowered the income tax rates and reduced taxes relative to the overall economy, *but* this caused the economy to boom and tax revenues went up in absolute terms.
Hmmm, the economy boomed so damn good, that Reagan decided to raise taxes damn near every year after his 'historic' tax cuts. Your claim is nonsense. I cut taxes -- and government revenue increases! Yeah, right. I have got some land to sell you. If Reagan hadn't raised taxes to make up for his budget-busting tax cut, the gov't would have become insolvent by now.
Ronald Reagan supported a number of tax increases after 1981. But he was adamant about never raising tax rates and the tax increases were miniscule compared to the tax rate cuts.
No way. When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%
I see. So you want to use average annual rates. But why cherry pick and exclude the -2% rate in '82. Reagan was president then, wasn't he? And did you forget to average the 1962-1966 rates? Or does that not fit with your reagan lore?
"But why cherry pick and exclude the -2% rate in '82. Reagan was president then, wasn't he?"
The tax rate cuts only started to be implemented in Mid 82, Actually, you can see their effect start in the big jump in GDP from Q3,82 (-2.2%) to Q4 (.2%)
http://www.presidentreagan.info/gdp.cfm
Even If we count 82 GDP, the multi-year GDP comes in at 3.5% but that is not as accurate a measure for the effects of the Reagan program.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
