Showing posts with label Keynes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keynes. Show all posts

Thursday, December 27, 2012

How Keynes Got it Right and the 'Right' Got it Wrong!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Many have proposed a 'flat' tax. It sounds good but isn't! Flat taxes are not really 'flat'. Ten percent of the income of a poor or middle person is a much, much greater burden than is the same percentage against the income of a millionaire. The difference is that merely keeping a roof over the family's head and food on the table is a MUCH bigger percentage of income/wealth for a poor or middle class family.

The very, very wealthy, in fact, find it difficult to spend all their wealth. What is left over after the cost of maintaining a villa in Spain or a swanky lodge in the Alps is invested in enterprises that earn even more wealth. Moreover, even Libertarians --if pressed --may admit that 10%, 20%, 30% percent, indeed, any percentage of a poor person's income is a much greater burden than almost any rate on the income of a millionaire! Among the many reasons this is so is that mere necessities --food, water and to varying degrees, shelter --are not only fixed, they will always amount to a much higher PERCENTAGE of a poor or middle class budget than that of the budget of a multi-millionaire or richer.

Libertarians, however, will maintain that income tax is immoral because tax policy may have the effect of re-distributing wealth and income. My reply is that when just one percent of a nation's population owns more than the rest of the population combined, it is time to raise taxes on the very rich.
The whole system is pure criminal as from the installation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Not only the American people suffers, the whole world has been sandwiched by the private banks behind the central banking system.

--G. Edward Griffin, Legalized Plunder of the American People
The best argument against a flat tax, ironically, has come from a so-called 'libertarian' who wrote:
That 10 percent is a greater burden on the poor than is 10 percent on the very rich is the very reason that income tax is immoral --as it is currently imposed upon us.
Alas! The Libertarian does not go far enough. A flat tax of any sort will penalize the poor while enriching the rich.

During the 'Great Depression', the American comedian Bob Hope was asked to comment on it. He quipped (and I paraphrase)
"..I looked up the word depression. A 'depression' is a hole. I looked up 'hole'. A hole is 'nothing'. So --if you think I am going to waste my time talking about nothing, you have another think coming!"
There is nothing mysterious about depressions. They are defined by 'negative GDP growth' from which follows negative job creation rates --not to be confused with mere slowdowns or periods of slow growth. Thus depressions are disastrous for the poor. The very, very rich can actually benefit from them by buying bargains that are beyond the reach of the poorer or middle classes. The 'ruling elites' are capable of rigging markets with cleverly timed 'sell-offs'. They have the luxury of buying back in at bargain prices.

A 'depression' is a period of 'contraction'. In the U.S. every recession/depression at least since World War II has occurred during a Republican administration. That is but one reason I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican.

If FDR had been either a Republican or what is commonly called a 'libertarian' (in the Ron Paul sense of the word) the U.S. would have eventually collapsed. Even so, it may have required the U.S. entry into WWII following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get the U.S. into the war. As a stimulus, 'war' created millions of new jobs and put women to work where --earlier --their presence had been unknown. The image of 'Rosie the Riveter' is still symbolic of the period. The good effect is that women would never again consent willingly to 'second class' citizen status.

As for Keynes, he would not have been surprised by the American experience. He was, after all, famous for his proposal that in times of increased joblessness, the government may do well to bury 'pound notes' in a landfill and let 'private enterprise' dig them up.

If it's all about jobs, why wait for a war to create jobs? A 'liberal' administration has a responsibility to society overall --not just to the 'ruling elites' who finance his campaigns. Rather, a liberal and/or progressive regime will support a more egalitarian society, in fact, a more efficient society as a result.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Myth of Military Keynesianism

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Military Keynesianism is another myth of dubious origins. In 1933, John Maynard Keynes wrote an open letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging the new President to borrow money to be spent on public works programs:
“Thus as the prime mover in the first stage of the technique of recovery I lay overwhelming emphasis on the increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure which is financed by Loans and not by taxing present incomes. Nothing else counts in comparison with this.
In a boom inflation can be caused by allowing unlimited credit to support the excited enthusiasm of business speculators. But in a slump governmental Loan expenditure is the only sure means of securing quickly a rising output at rising prices. That is why a war has always caused intense industrial activity. In the past orthodox finance has regarded a war as the only legitimate excuse for creating employment by governmental expenditure. You, Mr President, having cast off such fetters, are free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of war and destruction.

--Keynes, John (1933). "An Open Letter to President Roosevelt". Retrieved 2011-08-01.
How many people do you know build 'tanks' for a living? You've heard of beating swords into plowshares: how often do you suppose plow-shares become tanks and what is --in fact --the effect on farming when that occurs?

A nation that believes it can sustain a viable population by the mere production of arms is deluded. Moreover, if 'we' can build tanks --why are we no longer leading the world in the production of automobiles?

Why are we no longer leading the world in the production of steel?

Why are we no longer the world's breadbasket?

Why does Detroit look like a Ghost Town?

When was the last time you heard about the thriving steel manufacturing town of Pittsburgh?

If you believe that these things are trivial, check out the CIA's own World Fact Book. At the very top you will find CHINA with the World's largest Positive Current Account Balance!

Now ---scroll down!

Keep scrolling!

A little more!

Ah --at last --there is the United States at the very bottom of the list with the World's largest NEGATIVE Current Account Balance [formerly called, in our case, the Balance of Trade deficit]. In a word --CHINA owns us and keeps us fat and happy --like cattle! We have to be kept afloat! Otherwise, where would China dump its cheap crap.

One wonders how many American jobs have, in practice, been exported to China? How and why has this come about? This trend is traced to Nixon's trip to China; the groundwork for his historic trip was laid by one George H.W. Bush with whom I spoke on this very topic years later! Somewhat simplistically, Bush sold out American labor. It was the high price we paid to get out of Viet Nam.

'Reaganomics' bears NO resemblance to Keynesian economics in either theory or result! Keynesianism works; Reaganomics never worked and never will. Arthur Laffer, himself, may have regretted the sorry fraud! Laffer called it a "theoretical curve". Whether or not it was drawn on a napkin (as legend has it) matters not. It was assumed that tax cuts would stimulate purchases and sales generally. The reverse happened because only the very rich, an elite in fact, benefited from the tax cuts. The needs of the very rich were already met; the elites had simply squirreled away their winnings in offshore bank accounts, beyond scrutiny. The 'tax cuts' were a windfall easily tucked away. As a result, no jobs were created as a result of the infamous Reagan tax cut.

"Supply-side' economics is simply a failure, perhaps a PR stunt. The term 'trickle down theory' describes it perfectly; but the term originated earlier, with Will Rogers who said that money was "...appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

Laffer's curve never described reality. Had he been alive, Keynes would have denounced the reduction of growth in the money supply. The slowing of growth, indeed, the actual 'shrinkage' of the economy overall combined to create the 'perfect storm better known as the recession of 1981–82! It was the worst recession since H. Hoover's 'great' one! It is Reagan's legacy of failure and dimming hopes for all but the very, very, very rich.

Thus --the Reagan years are recalled as the era of huge budget deficits, low interest and inflation rates, and a depression of some two years, the deepest, longest since H. Hoover. The 'wrong' people benefited from GOP largesse --a depression resulted. One wonders how many $millions wound up in offshore tax havens following Reagan's 'welfare for the very rich'! We may never know. It was wealth forever lost to the U.S. economy.

Neither Laffer's curve nor Reagan's tax cut were Keynesian; Keynes is famous (or infamous) for his hypothetical about which he said the govt should bury pound notes in a landfill and let the people dig them up! Indeed --Reagan would have done much, much better had he done precisely that! Alas --he did not!  His 'tax cuts' did not benefit those whose expenditures would have 'stimulated' the flagging economy. Nor did the ruling elites invest them as Keynesian economics might require; certainly they were not invested in ways that create jobs or spending. Rather --they were banked offshore, representing a contraction/depression/a net loss of jobs and GDP, i.e, a depression of some two years, the worst such depression since H. Hoover's Great Depression of the 1930s.

'Wealth inequities/disparities' are the result of Reagan's tax cuts which benefited only the top 20 percent! Subsequently, the top 20 has, at last, become the ruling elite of just 1 percent which owns more than the rest of us combined. That's because however the rich are taxed, the 'tax burden' they experience is less than that experienced by the middle and poorer classes. That is the case because a flat tax of any 'percentage' is a greater burden to those who must always spend a much larger percentage of their income on mere necessities --not the least of which are roof and food!

'Necessities' are a much smaller percentage for ruling elites for whom the 'size' of a mansion is not a necessity but a luxury, for whom the swimming pool is not a necessity but is expected of his/her 'class', etc etc etc. Items most often indulged by 'elites' are unlikely to stimulate a domestic economy in any case. And as the number of very rich persons declines, their impact on the economy declines.  In the mansions of the very rich may be found luxury items the purchase of which will not improve the lot of a steel-mill worker or the men and women who used to make cars in Detroit.

Many credit WWII with ending the 'Great Depression". In fact, as it was waged WWII was NOT a 'massive stimulus' nor was it Keynesian. When demand is low, there is always the risk of 'gluts', over-production, expanding inventories. Some have proposed that during these times, a 'convenient' war may 'pump-up' demand!

Malthus, as I recall, advocated convenient wars to 'pump up demand'! That makes very little sense. On the one hand, a war-time government urges austerity while it utilizes existing resources to oppose the 'hun'! Thus what happened in the U.S. during WWII was hardly 'Keynesian". In fact, a variety of shortages severely inconvenienced the civilian population. Having spoken with many who lived through it, I have concluded that it was not the so much the war that stimulated U.S. growth but its end. Two 'booms' followed the return home of troops: 1) industry for which the troops were needed 2) a 'baby boom' as a result of families re-uniting.

While war was waged, many imported items were no longer available; the U.S. was at war with nation's that made and exported them to the U.S. Notably --sugar and coffee were very scarce. In fact, COKE (which things go better with) was scarce or unavailable most probably because sugar was scarce. Other things disappeared entirely --silk stockings among them.

In response, salvage campaigns encouraged people to save things like scrap metal, rubber, cooking fat! From these items weapons, ammunition, gas masks and explosives were made. A truly 'Keynesian' expansion of the economy cannot be read into this experience. There are no austerity measures in a Keynesian expansion driven as it is by more money in the hands of more people who will use it to buy more products and services. In war time, many 'consumers' are at war while those left on the 'home front' are expected to practice certain austerity measures. 'Austerity' is rarely Keynesian and certainly not Keynesian in this respect.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Wingnuts: 'Rogue', Rouge or Irrelevant?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Wingnuttery gets more absurd with each passing day. The wingnut la-la land has come un-glued and completely out of touch with reality. Found on Facebook a poignant reminder of the state of the economy, fact apparently lost on wingnuts!
Here's where I get my stamina and keep my sanity to:
  • - Apply for 30 jobs a week for 12 weeks and never hear back
  • - Spend 3 hours weekly with the bank to keep my home
  • after 4 months and 4 mortgage applications, send in the 5th mortgage application for the 5th month.

--Anonymous, Found on Facebook
Now --the right wing has derided Barack Obama's plan to put millions to work in a new industry --green energy! The right wing is in no position to deride anyone. This is the US right wing that put millions out of work with idiotic tax cuts and other windfalls for Wall Street banksters, buddies, cronies, stall buddies and privileged elites. To these idiots and elites, I have an appropriate epithet that begins with the letter 'F' and ends with 'you'!

Realistically, 'green energy' has a future. A world without it doesn't! It is a better, a brighter future than, say, a lifetime career in government run pits in which are dug out dollar bills made worthless by GOP 'sellouts' to China and Japan. What if the plan should put millions back to work and re-stimulated the economy?

What if it should fail? So what! We'll be no worse off! We we would be no worse off if it failed to create a single job! We will be considerably better off if it should put a million or more back to work! And infinitely better off if, by exploiting this new resource, America should find its better self again, a new industry, a future for millions now without hope!

It is not surprising that the geniuses of the utterly failed 'right wing' have the derided the idea. Keep in mind that these are the same folk that think 'privatization' of Social Security, letting the big banks who have brought us to the brink of utter economic collapse, administrate your retirement is a brilliant idea!

IDIOTS!!

These are the idiots who lambaste an Obama plan to create millions of productive jobs in green industries! I say Obama's plan is infinitely superior to the idiots' plan to turn over the only government program to have ever run a surplus to robber barons, speculators and fast buck artists on Wall Street!

The US economy collapsed because it contracted. It contracted because it produces very little that the rest of the world wants to buy. Check The CIA's World Fact Book for proof of this. The US is at the bottom of the list with the World's largest trade deficit, now called the Negative Current Account Balance. China, which props up the dollar as per agreements with the Bush crime family, is on top of the CIA's list with the world's largest positive Current Account Balance.

There was never a real opposition, i.e, a 'left wing' in America. The US system is just two wings of one party and there was, therefore, no restraint, no balance, no moderating influence as a result of 'compromise'.

$ 150 billion spent on windmills, solar panels and 'energy efficiency' is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions squandered and lost forever as a result of the overt criminality of the big banks in cahoots with the Fed. That's money lost forever, a contraction of the economy that caused the current depression! Obama's plan will create some 5 million jobs and promote economic growth. Obama could not do worse and, most certainly, will do better than a plan first proposed by John Maynard Keynes.
. . . fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is [italics added]. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

--John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, St Martin’s Press for the Royal Economic Society, 1973, p. 129).
It's time the US went back to work after having been told by the Reagan/Bush regimes that the US could survive by exporting its 'expertise'! Uh huh! Expertise in what?? The US is now paying the price for having abandoned its industries, having sold out to China, having stabbed labor in the back! The US never had a viable 'labor movement' that, in Poland, resulted in the fall of the communist regime. In America, by contrast, labor was derided as 'communist' and, under Ronald Reagan, made 'irrelevant'. Reagan cannot be 'credited' with having single handedly neutered the movement. The many professional murders by Pinkerton's, the Jihad waged by Gen. Harrison Grey Otis (Los Angeles), the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lesser known atrocities paved the way.

Having marginalized dissent, Reagan tax cuts enriched only the upper quintile, the nation's richest twenty percent. The trend was clearly visible in charts prepared by the Brookings Institution, BEA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics et al. Just as clearly was the brief reversal in Bill Clinton's second term. Alas, all 'gains' were lost under Bush Jr. Today --just one percent of the US population owns more than some 95 percent of the rest of us combined. The time has come to take another look at Keynes. Obama's plan is, at least, a start.
In the 1920s Keynes visited Russia, where he was able to meet some of his wife's impoverished relatives. Unlike his friends Beatrice and Sidney Webb, or the dramatist George Bernard Shaw, Keynes wasn't impressed by Stalin's Russia. "How can I accept a doctrine," he asked, "which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete economic textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world?" But Keynes was barely more enthusiastic about capitalism as it was practised in the contemporary world. "Such a system," he wrote, "has to be immensely, not just moderately successful to survive." The Great Slump made it clear that capitalism was neither.

--John Maynard Keynes: Can the great economist save the world?
The current 'crisis' was a long time in making. Compounding the problem are several factors; 1) the 'elite' one percent are joined at the hip to the Military/Industrial complex. Like Rome, the US makes its 'living' killing people in those foreign nations rich in the resources needed by the US, 2) under Ronald Reagan, the US had begun an 'export' of jobs, most notably Japan and China; 3) education is neglected in America, the best example being Texas where the percentage graduating high school slipped to last in the nation --the result of back to back incompetent regimes: Bush and Perry. Texas now beats out Mississippi for dead last in education. Concurrently, the state's prison population is burgeoning, enriching the corporations to whom was awarded the contracts in which they house the thousands (millions nationwide) for whom the only career left them is crime.

In the meantime, there is secessionist talk and not just among rednecks, death row inmates in Texas, or tea bagging imbeciles down south.
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

BILL POOVEY, Secessionists Meeting in Tennessee
I submit that the Southern Secessionists are still nuts! The economy of the south is in no better shape that it was when it was based almost entirely upon slave labor. What does the South export now except bigots, bullshit and tours of Plantation homes where the great grandfathers of bigots convinced themselves that they were 'aristocrats'! As the Rude Pundit put it so eloquently --fuck the South!
Why I moderate comments

  • SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
  • Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:
Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Add to Technorati Favorites

Download DivX

Spread the word

Thursday, October 16, 2008

'Great Depression' Lessons from 'It's a Wonderful Life'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Watching CNN leaves one the impression that the U.S. is poised, like George Baily on a bridge, about to jump off into another Great Depression. George Baily owned the local 'Building and Loan' from which he received deposits which he loaned to build homes in Bedford Falls, a symbolic American 'every town'.

The film --'It's a Wonderful LIfe' --is set in a time shortly after World War II. James Stewart is George Bailey, a man whose imminent suicide on Christmas Eve required the intervention --not of Congress --but a 'guardian angel'. In the real world, when big banks required a 'guardian angel', they got a bailout! They were not George Baily nor are big banks an integral part of real communities like Baily's 'Buildling and Loan' had been in Bedford Falls.
On Christmas Eve, while on his way to deposit $8,000.00 for the Building & Loan, Uncle Billy (Thomas Mitchell) encounters Mr. Potter and, bursting with pride, shows him the newspaper article about his nephew, about to be honored by the President. Absentmindedly, he leaves the deposit envelope with the $8000 in the folds of the newspaper; Potter discovers it later in his office, but since Billy left the bank without officially depositing it into the B&L account, Potter keeps the money without crediting the account. This is also the day the bank examiner is to inspect the Building & Loan's records; he arrives to find the money missing and George and Billy frantically ransacking the place looking for it. Returning home, George sees his whole life as a massive failure. In desperation, George appeals to Mr. Potter for a loan to rescue the company; Potter turns him down when all the collateral George can offer is $500 equity in a $15,000 life insurance policy. Potter cruelly remarks George is "worth more dead than alive." Later, George crashes his car into a tree during a snowstorm and runs to a nearby bridge, intending to commit suicide.

--It's a Wonderful Life
In the 1930s, disillusioned Americans might have embraced full blown socialism. The 'right wing' was spooked. The FBI considered 'It's a Wonderful Life' to be a subversive film, because it "deliberately maligned the upper class" and attempted to show that "people who had money were mean and despicable characters". They might do so again if it might avoid another Great Depression --still misunderstood by most writers, historians and economists. Right winger cheerleaders for 'laissez-faire' economics must be chagrined by a recent 'Marxist' bailout of so-called 'free enterprise'. Just as economists are conducting post-mortems on our ongoing crash, economists were reading the 'bones' left behind by the stock market crash of 1929.
However, in 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz transformed the debate about the Great Depression. That year saw the publication of their now-classic book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. The Monetary History, the name by which the book is instantly recognized by any macro economist, examined in great detail the relationship between changes in the national money stock--whether determined by conscious policy or by more impersonal forces such as changes in the banking system--and changes in national income and prices.

--Ben S. Bernanke, The Federal Reserve Board, Money, Gold, and the Great Depression
What Bernanke fails to mention is that Friedman --despite his great reputation and adulation as a 'conservative' economist --leaned heavily upon the work of John Maynard Keynes in his analysis of the Great Depression.
[John Maynard] Keynes seemed to be the right man for the time as he was reflecting the increasingly common view that blamed the capitalists themselves for the situation. In the General Theory Keynes rejected the view that the boom-bust cycle was due to over-expansive government monetary policy and that the stubbornness of the Depression was due to government interference with market mechanisms. He labeled all economists who believed such views as “classical”—in other words, hopelessly out of touch with reality. Instead, Keynes proposed a “general theory” that he thought capable of explaining not only the good times but also the bad.

According to Keynes, what drives the economy is aggregate demand or aggregate expenditures. Aggregate demand can be broken down into three main components: personal consumption (C), private investment (I), and government expenditures (G). The relationship can be summed up with this formula: AD = C + I + G. If Aggregate Demand is strong, the economy will be strong. However, if Aggregate Demand falters, businesses will end up with large unsold inventories and will cut back on production to avoid surpluses in the future. As they cut back they will of course need fewer inputs—including labor—and high unemployment will result.

The culprit in this story, the element that throws the entire system out of whack, is private investment. Private investment consists of business expenditures on machines, buildings, factories, and so on. In other words, investment is capital formation. Keynes claimed that private investment is inherently unstable due to what he called the “animal spirits” of businessmen/capitalists. He believed that businessmen are ultimately irrational and prone to herd-like behavior. Like sheep that blindly follow other sheep in the herd, it is easy for businessmen to become “irrationally exuberant”—as well as irrationally lethargic. Investment lethargy would trigger a large decrease in private investment, thus decreasing aggregate expenditures and triggering an economic downturn.

--Ivan Pongracic, Jr, The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman
George Baily represents the 'private investment' part of the Keynes' equation. Had he jumped off the bridge, the picture of Bedford Falls as "Pottersville" might have come true. I see Pottersville whenever I see Wal-Mart come to town to put the locals out of business. It required an intervening angel to save Bedford Falls from its fate at the hands of a greedy banker. Like John Maynard Keynes, we wonder: who will save "capitalism from itself”? Where is our guardian angel?
It seems an extraordinary imbecility that this wonderful outburst of productive energy [over 1924-1929] should be the prelude to impoverishment and depression. Some austere and puritanical souls regard it both as an inevitable and a desirable nemesis on so much over expansion, as they call it; a nemesis on man's speculative spirit. It would, they feel, be a victory for the mammon of unrighteousness if so much prosperity was not subsequently balanced by universal bankruptcy. We need, they say, what they politely call a 'prolonged liquidation' to put us right. The liquidation, they tell us, is not yet complete. But in time it will be. And when sufficient time has elapsed for the completion of the liquidation, all will be well with us again.

I do not take this view. I find the explanation of the current business losses, of the reduction in output, and of the unemployment which necessarily ensues on this not in the high level of investment which was proceeding up to the spring of 1929, but in the subsequent cessation of this investment. I see no hope of a recovery except in a revival of the high level of investment. And I do not understand how universal bankruptcy can do any good or bring us nearer to prosperity... [p. 349].

While some part of the investment which was going on in the world at large was doubtless ill judged and unfruitful, there can, I think, be no doubt that the world was enormously enriched by the constructions of the quinquennium from 1925 to 1929; its wealth increased in these five years by as much as in any other ten or twenty years of its history... [p. 347].

Doubtless, as was inevitable in a period of such rapid changes, the rate of growth of some individual commodities [over 1924-1929] could not always be in just the appropriate relation to that of others. But, on the whole, I see little sign of any serious want of balance such as is alleged by some authorities. The rates of growth [of different sectors]seem to me, looking back, to have been in as good a balance as one could have expected them to be. A few more quinquennia of equal activity might, indeed, have brought us near to the economic Eldorado where all our reasonable economic needs would be satisfied... [pp. 347-48].>

--John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory and After: Part I, Preparation; Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, vol. 13, pt. 1, Donald Moggridge, ed., (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

I should not be surprised to learn that the FBI considered 'It's a Wonderful Life' to be subversive in their view. The FBI reported that it "...attempted to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a 'scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists." So?
There is submitted herewith the running memorandum concerning Communist infiltration of the motion picture industry which has been brought up to date as of May 26, 1947....

In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [redacted] related that if he made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiner in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have "suffered at all" in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and "I would never have done it that way."

[redacted] recalled that approximately 15 years ago, the picture entitled "The Letter" was made in Russia and was later shown in this country. He recalled that in this Russian picture, an individual who had lost his self-respect as well as that of his friends and neighbors because of drunkenness, was given one last chance to redeem himself by going to the bank to get some money to pay off a debt. The old man was a sympathetic character and was so pleased at his opportunity that he was extremely nervous, inferring he might lose the letter of credit or the money itself. In summary, the old man made the journey of several days duration to the bank and with no mishap until he fell asleep on the homeward journey because of his determination to succeed. On this occasion the package of money dropped out of his pocket. Upon arriving home, the old man was so chagrined he hung himself. The next day someone returned the package of money to his wife saying it had been found. [redacted] draws a parallel of this scene and that of the picture previously discussed, showing that Thomas Mitchell who played the part of the man losing the money in the Capra picture suffered the same consequences as the man in the Russian picture in that Mitchell was too old a man to go out and make money to pay off his debt to the banker..

--To: The Director [FBI], D.M. Ladd, COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
The FBI may have been correct to believe 'It's a Wonderful Life' to be 'subversive'. Indeed! Capra's great film was subversive of the right wing reduction of human beings to mere 'economic units' in a right wing machine in which an increasingly tiny elite alone --Mr Potters --benefit. The difference is that in an FBI version of 'It's a Wonderful Life', George Bailey would have jumped off the bridge.

I believe that it is the FBI that is subversive of our most precious freedoms guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights! It is the FBI that is subversive of the intentions of James Madison who wrote our Bill of Rights, subversive of the intentions of those brave patriots who were willing to hang in order order to secure those rights. What has the FBI to say about that? That the FBI would think a classic film 'subversive' I find subversive! I would suggest the FBI STFU with respect to those "freedoms" that are guaranteed us by law!! I wonder if the FBI would like to debate that topic with me.

From an online reader review of "It's a Wonderful Life".
I've always thought that the reason It's A Wonderful Life has enjoyed such enduring popularity is that more than any other film it shows what us clearly and poignantly what can be the value of a single individual and the contribution to the greater good that almost everyone can make.

George Bailey as portrayed by James Stewart is the kind of "every man" hero with whom all us can identify. He had every day problems to be sure, raising and providing for a family, but he had even bigger problems. Fate has made him the rallying point of opposition in his small town of Bedford Falls to the "richest and meanest man in town", embodied in Lionel Barrymore.

It's a real David vs. Goliath battle. Barrymore seems to have unlimited resources at his disposal. Samuel S. Hinds as Peter Bailey put it so well to him in asking what are you doing all this for? Barrymore does have more money than he could ever possibly use. A little charity wouldn't hurt him.

Remember the basic plot outline. A whole lot of people in Bedford Falls one post World War II Christmas Eve see that their friend George is toting a heavy load of mysterious origins. Their prayers reach the heavens where an angel is dispatched to aid.

But before Henry Travers the angel arrives, he's given the story of George Bailey's life. And we see the kind of struggles he's had, the sacrifices he's made for the good of a whole lot of others. We've also seen a greedy and grasping Potter, grabbing everything that George Bailey cannot save.

Something happens that day before Christmas through no fault of his own, Bailey is in big trouble. It's driven him to the brink of despair. That's why the angel is sent down. He shows him the alternate universe that would have been had he never existed. It's something each and every one of us should try to do, step outside ourselves see just what our contributions can be.

But I think what Frank Capra is trying to say in this greatest of his films is that having done that and we realize we haven't contributed to the greater good of humankind, we resolve to do so. It's a simple, but profound lesson.

What if Potter got the same opportunity? In a sense Charles Dickens did just that in A Christmas Carol. Would Lionel Barrymore change? It's an interesting point of speculation.

In addition to those cast members already mentioned a whole group of players who worked with Capra before grace this film. Add to that some others and you have a perfectly cast feature picture.

Donna Reed has an interesting part as well. Your choice of mate is real important in life. Had she not been as loving and supportive to George Bailey, he might very well have taken a different route in life. Mary Hatch Bailey became a signature part for her, more identified than her role in From Here to Eternity which got her an Oscar. It certainly was the basis for her TV series.

When Todd Karns who plays Harry Bailey toasts his brother he's saying that the riches of the world are not necessarily things that can be quantified. Your life is not measured in material things, but in how you use the material things given you.

And that universal lesson will be taught into eternity as long as It's A Wonderful Life is shown every year. Wouldst we all learn it.

--"To My Big Brother George, The Richest Man In Town", 25 December 2005


Friday, January 25, 2008

The GOP Will Have to Steal the Next Election Because They Cannot Win it

The Republican party is losing its "business base" because it's on the wrong side of every issue that will decide the Presidency and the make up of congress. Those issues include the economy, the endless war, ballooning deficits and health care. A killer issue is a fact gaining traction even among the GOP: the GOP is bad for a good economy. I've got the stats to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Also spelling doom for the GOP is the fact that even hard-nose businessmen are "fed up" with GOP myopia, its fanatical obsession with so-called "social issues", primarily, abortion and gay marriage. These are not the "wedge issues" they used to be. People are just sick of hearing about it! Give it a frickin' rest.
Focus On Social Issues. Countless businessmen I know tell me they are exhausted with the Republicans' focus on abortion, gay marriage, and the host of social issues the party insists on putting on the front burner. Business journals have similar reports. This is not surprising, for all polls show that for most Americans, these are not the centrally important issues.

--John Dean, The Dwindling Republican Business Base: It's the Economy, Stupid
This is expected from so-called progressives and liberals, but the growing sense of discontent and malaise found among those who would normally vote or consider themselves GOP may spell utter disaster come election day. Like everyone else, it seems, business people are likewise fed up with the endless war against Iraq.

The War In Iraq. Just as many other Americans find the war in Iraq an unqualified disaster, businesspeople tell reporters that they do not like the lies Bush and Cheney told, to take us into a war that will likely only create more terrorists hating America. Like many others, they see this as dangerous folly. In addition, the war has been a fiscal disaster, with billions thrown away and no accounting whatsoever. As a retired Westinghouse manager and lifelong Republican told the Wall Street Journal, "'We've lost control of spending,' and the administration's execution of the Iraq war has been 'incompetent.'" Businesspeople have little tolerance for incompetence; only true ideologues can over look it.

--John Dean, The Dwindling Republican Business Base: It's the Economy, Stupid
With all due respect to John Dean, whose columns for Findlaw never fail to cut to the chase, I have been saying for years that when it comes to the economy, any credit given the GOP is unfounded. The GOP has presided over worse economic growth married to increased federal spending at least since World War II. The administration of Ronald Reagan should have been the wake up call. Reagan's tax cut of 1982 was followed by a depression of some two years. GOP types counter that following the recession, the economy rebounded with a boom. Hardly! At the end of two years of negative growth, in fact the worst "depression" since the crash of 1929, Americans were lucky that the economy merely resumed an anemic 3 percent growth rate, nothing to write home about. Big corporations could write off many losses but inividuals and families, as usual, were stuck with the tab. Many never really fully recovered.

We haven't seen incompetence on this scale since Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan or Bush Sr. (all Republicans, need I remind?)

The time has come to bury forever two tired, old, worn-out GOP shibboleths: 1) Wealth does not and never will trickle down; 2) there is no invisible hand! Just ask Larry Craig. In the meantime, check out these budget deficits below, caused primarily by profligate tax cuts which have never stimulated the economy and have, in fact, never trickled down. Notice that the worst deficits --like terrorism --are worse during GOP regimes.
According to supply-side theory, these actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not plunged it into the worst recession in 40 years. Other problems involve timing: Reagan's first tax cuts went into effect in 1982, but this was also the summer that the Federal Reserve Board slashed interest rates and expanded the money supply. Most economists believe the Fed, not Reagan, was responsible for the following recovery. Finally, the recession of 1990 began four months before Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. The recession began in July 1990; Bush signed his tax increases into law in November 1990.

And supply-siders are careful to note that Reagan's was the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. In truth, the Kennedy-Johnson expansion was longer: 106 months compared to Reagan's 92.1

--The Reagan Years

Moreover, the Fed's "peace time expansion" following Ronald Reagan's "depression" of almost two years was uneven. The worst income disparities in American history had already been triggered. As if by design, Reagan's rich base got even richer and everyone else lost ground. They are still losing ground despite an all to brief respite in Bill Clinton's second term. The GOP has ruined the American economy, perhaps forever. The budget shown below --your money squandered by Bush.




The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are all but meaningless in the world apres-Bush. Both terms already mean something different than they did in the 19th Century. For example, British economist John Maynard Keynes was until very recently scorned by the right wing; his brand of economics was called "liberal" and he was simplistically, perhaps, simple-mindedly, associated with Marx. Yet, Keynes took issue with Karl Marx on key points. "I don't want a social revolution", Keynes said. He went on to characterize poverty as a "...dysfunctional threat" to a capitalist system which he favored. Fact is, Keynes, for all his notoriety was conservative.

Nevertheless, that Keynes denounced "poverty" is enough to earn him the enmity of modern conservatives who obviously like the feelings of superiority they experience when millions of others are without jobs and scrambling to feed themselves or, as Bush put it, to "...put food on your families".

It is Keynes' use of the phrase "...extending the traditional functions of government" that inspires conservatives to cross themselves and wear garlic. It was by "extending" those traditional functions that Keynes believed unemployment could be eliminated. This is, of course, anathema to laissez-faire throwbacks like Ron Paul whose economic thinking is stuck in 19th Century mud.

The same conservatives are not bothered by "extensions of government" effected by Reagan, Bush Sr., and now the Shrub. Ronald Reagan's program would have been thought "liberal" had the same program been advocated by a Democrat. As Richard Nixon committed the nation to deficits of truly "liberal" proportions, he famously said: "We are all Keynesians now".

The GOP has managed to screw up even that tried and proven formula. When Democrats practice Keynesian economics, it works. When the GOP does it, the nation slides into recession or depression as the rich get rich off the carcasses left behind. Check the chart! The reason for that is the fact that GOP "tax cuts" enrich an already elite. Very little of any of those "tax cut windfalls" ever trickle down to anyone in any way at any time. It is probably found offshore like every job that the GOP has managed to export despite the bullshit that was told me by Milton Friedman personally.

The biggest spending "liberals" are the GOP, yet, unlike "big spending Democrats" whose deficits were accompanied by handsome and egalitarian growth, GOP big spending is invariably associated with depression, stagflation, outsourcing and rising unemployment! If this is done deliberately to enrich cronies, then the GOP leadership should be tried en masse for criminal conspiracy. If not, they should be pilloried as the lying incompetents that they have proven themselves to be.

The GOP find hypocrisy expedient and a recent "debate" is a case in point. All GOPcandidates all but bowed low to praise Herr Bush who has now outspent Ronald Reagan with even less good, Keynesian effect! Reagan had been our biggest spending liberal, tripling the national debt, running up historically high deficits, doubling the size of the Federal Bureaucracy. None of it worked as planned because none of it benefited working Americans. Reagan had in mind "extending the traditional functions of government" but only in order to benefit the wealthy and the corporate.

Even the GOP cannot ignore the effect that the war against Iraq has had on the US economy. But, as John Dean points out, business folk, normally considered the GOP base, are just as fed up with the war as are most other, normal Americans. No one can now deny the fact that the war against Iraq has very nearly defeated the US economy, now on the brink of economic collapse. Google the title: "Terrorism is always worse under GOP Regimes". That was originally my article and it would appear that it has gone "viral". I am grateful that those who have graciously published it on hundreds, if not thousands of blogs and other sites, are kind enough to link back to the original which is parked right here on this cowboy's ranch. Let us hope that another irrefutable truth goes viral: the Republican party is bad for a good economy!

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Why the GOP lies about the economy

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The United States has never been so polarized and never has the polarization made less sense. Never has it been more virulent. But --what if I were to tell you that Ronald Reagan was the biggest spending liberal of them all and John Maynard Keynes --reviled by Reagan-heads --was a conservative? What if I told you that Ronald Reagan failed when he actually did what he said he would do and succeeded when he did what he said he wouldn't?

"Whore House" politics debases the language to facilitate their lies. They lie in order to cover up the the cloaked pay off. What passes for debate is irrational and needlessly vehement. It's all a smokescreen. The terms "liberal" and "conservative", for example, are all but meaningless in the world apres-Bush. The meaning of both terms are entirely different now than in the 19th Century, in fact, both terms are used differently in Europe than in the US.

For example, British economist John Maynard Keynes is habitually scorned by right-wingers. Not surprisingly, his brand of economics is called "liberal" if his name comes up at all. I daresay --most conservatives have probably never heard of him. Of those who ave heard his name, few understand him. Yet, Keynes took issue with Karl Marx on a key point: "I don't want a social revolution". Keynes, however, called poverty a "...dysfunctional threat" to a capitalist system which he favored.

I call favoring capitalism, "conservative". Nevertheless, that Keynes denounced "poverty" is enough to earn the enmity of modern conservatives who obviously like the feelings of superiority they experience when millions of others are without jobs and scrambling to feed themselves or, as Bush put it, to "...put food on your families".

It is Keynes' use of the phrase "...extending the traditional functions of government" that inspires conservatives to cross themselves and wear garlic. It was by "extending" those traditional functions that Keynes believed unemployment could be eliminated. This is, of course, anathema to laissez-faire throwbacks like Ron Paul whose economic thinking is stuck in the 19th Century.

The same conservatives are not bothered by "extensions of government" effected by Reagan, Bush Sr., and now the Shrub. Ronald's Reagan's program would have been thought "liberal" had the same program been advocated by a Democrat. Just as it is believed "Only Nixon could go to China", it is apparently believed that only a conservative can espouse a "liberal" agenda and get away with it.

Hypocrisy is expedient. Until Bush Jr, Ronald Reagan was our biggest spending liberal. He tripled the national debt, ran up historically high deficits, and doubled the size of the Federal Bureaucracy. None of it worked as planned because none of it benefited working Americans. Reagan had in mind "extending the traditional functions of government" but only in order to benefit the wealthy and the corporate. It is only when "extending the traditional functions of government" benefits the middle or poorer classes that "conservatives" object to "liberal" policies. "Conservatives" love welfare when it benefits elites who don't need it.

Some history may illustrate the point: the Wall Street crash of 1929 was followed by a severe world wide depression acutely felt in the U.S., Germany, France, and to a lesser degree --Great Britain and Sweden. Nevertheless, unemployment was high in Sweden when that nation returned a Labor government committed to a program of public investment to address the high unemployment problem. It worked. By 1935 real output in Sweden was 7 percent above its 1929 level. Unemployment was reduced and the finance minister was said to have been happy to suffer another budget deficit to stimulate the economy.

To be fair, the US also spent itself out of the Great Depression. The differences are that it occurred much later, and then it was due to the massive military spending necessary to wage World War II. The US has been addicted to war ever since. Spending in Sweden tended to benefit not merely the rich elites but, rather, the population as a whole. The US "experiment" benefited but a few monied defense contractors and birthed the egg from which a Military/Industrial complex would hatch.

Ronald Reagan's budget deficit did not have as happy a result as those achieved peacebly in Sweden. Reagan's spending should have resulted in comparable widespread, near universal prosperity. But because it was a payoff instead of a program, his tax cut of 1982 was quickly followed by the nation's worst recession since the Great Depression, a recession of some 18 months characterized by record levels of unemployment, home losses, the newly poor sleeping under bridges and overpasses. For having been screwed by "Unca" Ronnie, the recent poor were called "crazy" by Reagan and his GOP disciples.

The explanation is simple and may be found in the writings of Reagan's budget director, David Stockman who blamed a "noisy faction of Republicans" for Reagan's infamous tax cut. Reagan might have achieved the prosperity that Keynes had predicted had his policies not been designed to reward only the filthy rich elite, in other words, his base. It was said that his tax cut would stimulate new investment and create new jobs --the vehicle by which the increased wealth would trickle down! It all sounds good in theory. The mountain of stats at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BEA, and elsewhere clearly prove that the wealth never trickled down: the rich did not re-invest the tax cuts. There were no new jobs.

One wonders why Reagan didn't just cut out the middle man. A more equitable tax might have put more spendable income directly into the hands of consumers. Spent money circulates and drives an economy. That consumers spend money seems to be a fact lost on the likes of Reagan, Bush, and the nation's rich and callous elites.

Surely, there were knowledgeable advisers in Reagan's regime who knew better. The tax cut, therefore, was entirely political, a pay off to the rich for their support. Nothing has changed in the GOP. The Bush administration has made several such "payoffs" during his catastrophic and criminal regime.


The 'Cowboy' on Facebook

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009


Sunday, July 15, 2007

Is This World War III?

Are we in the midst of World War III? Or is this merely the third global battle in a One Hundred Years' War? The debate had already begun by the time Newt Gingrich recently opined that the current conflict is World War III. More recently, Media Matters for America noted that CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck began his program of July 12 with a discussion with former CIA officer Robert Baer by saying "we've got World War III to fight"! He warned of an impending apocalypse. On July 13, in a similar discussion, Beck said of World War III: "It is here."

Gingrich says it's World War III

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record. ...

Some background on the road to World War III. The 20th Century proved to be the most tragic, the most horrific century in human history --an outcome that might have been avoided had we but listened to a single voice, the economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes (1883-1946), an important English economist, wrote the prescient The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He attacked the effects of Versailles Settlement for its disastrous effects on Germany. It is widely believed that the Settlement contributed to beginning World War II.

Keynes revolutionized economics with The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), generally regarded as the most influential social science treatise of the 20th Century. It changed the way the world looked at economics and the role played by government in society. Few books have had such impact. We are still not paying attention to Keynes! Pete Seeger asked: "...when will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
If the European civil war is to end with France and Italy abusing their momentary victorious power to destroy Germany and Austria-Hungary now prostrate, they invite their own destruction also, being so deeply and inextricably intertwined with their victims by hidden psychic and economic bonds.

--John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919

Keynes understood as perhaps no one else the long term effects that punitive reparations would have on Germany and, eventually, the rest of the world.

The 21st Century promises to be at least as horrific, at least as tragic. For the same reasons, Bush's campaign of atrocity, torture and oil theft lays the ground work for an endless series of future wars. It is the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who have seen in the Middle East a powder keg. Unless Bush can scrape off the tar baby, the quagmire will morph into a wider war. This may have been what Bush had in mind when he urged Israel to attack Syria during Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon. Certainly, that action would have led to a longer, wider war. Possibly World War III.

Fight against terror could take 15 years

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
Last Updated: 1:46am BST 09/07/2007

Britain faces a 15-year battle to end the threat posed by Islamist terrorists, the Government's new security supremo has admitted.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former First Sea Lord, said the overall danger facing the country, from both home-grown and foreign terrorists, was at its greatest ever level and that a new approach was badly needed to tackle it.

In his first interview since his surprise appointment by Gordon Brown as security minister, Sir Alan called on people to be "a little bit un-British" and even inform on each other in an attempt to trap those plotting to take innocent lives.

"Britishness does not normally involve snitching or talking about someone," he said. "I'm afraid, in this situation, anyone who's got any information should say something because the people we are talking about are trying to destroy our entire way of life."
Talk about World War III risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. This war has already lasted as long as World War II and there is no end in site. Bush policies are wedded to the ruthless ambitions of big oil --Bush's partners and sponsors. There is no chance that Bush will change his policies. Impeachment and removal are our only options.

We had been promised a different kind of war, a shadowy war in which "evil doers" would be smoked out and brought to justice. Typical of a "bait and switch" administration, we got a quagmire! Promised limited government, we got Big Brother. Promised no "nation building", we got "nation destruction". Promised "faith based initiatives", we got a half-assed theocracy based on junk theology and claptrap!
This war will be more ambiguous, more shadowy. In at least one respect, it will resemble the French and Indian War of the 18th century, fought in the wilderness by small, mobile forces. It will be more like the war on drugs, or the war on poverty, or the ongoing war against crime, in that it is unlikely ever to be won decisively. Unconditional surrender by the terrorists is an unreasonable expectation, and the defeat of "every terrorist group of global reach," as promised by Bush, is a hugely ambitious goal.

--Is this WWIII, how will we know who's winning?

Bush's war began with a crisp new look and soon morphed into tired old Viet Nam, a bog of discredited ideology and even less effective strategies. Certainly, Viet Nam portended the future of warfare. In Viet Nam, the US took on the un-winnable task of defending a "string of faceless generals" none of whom had real legitimacy or the widespread support of the people. Despite CIA skullduggery, the US eventually lost because it never found a legitimate government to defend. Nor has it in Iraq.

Failed Presidents are most likely to kick off World War III. Bush is most certainly a failed President who sees in military adventure some "cover". When Israel attacked Lebanon, Bush encouraged the Israelis to take on Syria as well. Had Bush seen in a wider conflict some relief from his deteriorating position at home? There is a special place in hell reserved for Bush, indeed, anyone who finds in universal suffering and tragedy his own wasted "salvation".
In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practised, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as 'profiteers' the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods. These 'profiteers' are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not.

--John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace

Why the United States will continue to threaten the entire world:
So, I see a customer I hadn't seen in a couple months. He's ex-Navy, Republican, NRA member, mid-fifties. I've known him 15 years and he's always been a decent enough guy. Yeah, he watches Fox 'News' but he'd always listen to reason. He's really pissed off about the way Iraq was botched and about how it's all gone to Hell over there. So I ask him today, "I bet you're gonna vote Democrat next year."

"Nope," he says. "Republican across the board."

So I gotta ask. "Even after all this horseshit in Iraq?"

"Yup," he nods.

"How come?" I ask.

"Niggers and spics," he replies.

My jaw drops open. "What?"

"Niggers and spics," he says again. "The Republicans don't like 'em and neither do I."

--Alternate Brain
The fault lines run deep.

Send Liberals to "Gas Chambers."... Astonishing Right-Wing Extremism!

A good investigative journalist, if needed, can hide aboard a cruise full of white supremacists and manage not only to escape without punching someone and thereby blowing their cover, but also get out with one hell of a story. That is exactly what Johann Hari did when he joined the National Review cruise and their motley of hate. The result is breathtaking and incredibly frightening. One has to wonder how Jewish travlers aboard this hate vessel did not recognize the rhetoric and make way directly to the nearest inflatable device.

From the masterful Hari article, I give you The Ship of Fools:

"I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, both chilling and
burning, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she says. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe.""

If you are concerned that the hate constituency hates only Muslims, don't worry, they hate everyone who is unlike them and suggest not so novel ideas for taking care of undesirables (emph mine):

"I am getting used to these moments – when gentle holiday geniality bleeds into... what? I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " f course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles." Then things'll change.""

The gas chamber, eh? Executions for fellow citizens? Is that where we are now?

Looks like the "cultural war" has gone psycho! The GOP is a crime syndicate. The right wing exemplifies institutionalized psychosis. However repugnant this notion is for liberals, it is time that we armed. If someone tries to "gas" you or herd you into a gas chamber, shoot to kill the sonovubitch!

Saudis’ Role in Iraq Insurgency Outlined

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior US military officer and Iraqi lawmakers. ...
Bill Moyers’ Roundtable On Impeachment Of Bush & Cheney

Naturally, you can expect the Faux Network to censor one of the most brilliant TV programs ever:

Additional ResourcesDiscoveries






Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine