| Omblog.net | |||
|
Blog Home By Month Recent Entries
Here are some links that we like: Huffington Post DailyKos Talking Points Memo The Young Turks Dean Baker Oliver Willis Frank Schaeffer Matt Taibbi Cliff Schector Bob Cesca Mahablog Atrios Sam Seder Ezra Klein Kevin Drum John Cole Matthew Yglesias Hullabaloo DailyKosTV Firedoglake BAGnewNotes Paul Krugman Rober Reich Baseline Scenario Tapped Blogs TPM Muckraker TPM Cafe Juan Cole Talk To Action Bartholomew 's Notes Things You Wouldn't Know... Cosmic Variance Rumproast The Daily Beast Dome on the Range Leftyblogs/Kansas Leftyblogs/Missouri Best of the Blogs Firedup Missouri Show Me Progress Media Matters FAIR Blog The Authoritarians Bonddad Blog Zero Hedge FiveThirtyEight Consumerist Future Majority ThinkProgress Campus Progress Center for American Progress OurFuture.org Crooks and Liars : AlterNet Video AFLCIOnow Gun Guys Jesus' General Flying Spaghetti Monster Max Blumenthal Truthout BuzzFlash.com The Nation AlterNet News Hounds Liberal Oasis The Raw Story American Rights at Work
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
Blog Home : December 2008 : 2008-12-08 to 2008-12-14
by Lee Stranahan
Roger Ebert does an absolute humdinger of a takedown on Ben
Stein's anti-evolution film Expelled in his piece Win
Ben Stein's Mind. Seriously, damn, read it. There's even a
great cartoon. Here's the last paragraph...
Jesus' General
The article about Herbert Hoover in the Encyclopedia of Capitalism says:
Hoover’s failure to implement relief measures was a reflection of his personal opposition to government intervention in the economy. For example, he opposed the proposals for direct federal relief to unemployed workers; he was against such government handouts because they were in direct conflict with his belief in "rugged individualism." He also rejected the request of unemployed veterans for immediate payment of their World War I bonuses (not due until 1945). Known as the Bonus March of 1932, the Veterans’ request of their bonuses caused trouble for Hoover and exacerbated his relationship with veterans, who had been staunch supporters of him just three years earlier. [...]
Although Hoover’s vision of the economy had served him well, the years of Depression had rendered obsolete his commitment to non-government action. The American people were ready for a change in government and in economic philosophy and they elected Roosevelt in an overwhelming victory. The Democrats also achieved a substantial majority in both houses of Congress. Thus began the era of the New Deal, a period of great transformation for the American political tradition.
Boy, this sounds awfully familiar — probably more familiar than conservative Republicans today would want to admit. The difference is between macroeconomics and microeconomics. To put it simply, what a household or business needs to do during lean economic times is not the same as what a government needs to do during lean economic times. Governments are not run like households or businesses, nor should they be, no matter how much ignorant conservatives keep repeating the idea. The responsibilities and needs of each are different and they need to be run differently.
jem6x has an excellent
diary on Newsweek's great cover story on the Bible and gay
marriage. Go check it out. But this
comment
by gladkov was particularly excellent. In short, if we are to let the
Bible define what "traditional marriage" should look like, then our
marriage laws should be amended as such: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union
between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take
concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II
Chron
11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is
a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.
(Deut
22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor
the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall
marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately
does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10;
Deut 25:5-10) G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in
your town,
it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even
if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old),
tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies
only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
David Sirota
......They told us that eviscerating consumer protections would unleash the markets benevolent power and boost the economy. They told us that a trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout would solve a credit crisis. They told us that bailout would be subjected to intense oversight and scrutiny.
Wrong, wrong and wrong - and when critics predicted just that, sneering commentators and congressional leaders berated us as know-nothing Luddites, conspiracy theorists, or both.
But with the release of three new reports, there's no debate anymore about who was correct and who wasn't. The studies prove that the critics were right and the ideologues of Washington were wrong.
When in 2005 Congress overwhelmingly passed a credit card industry-written bill gutting bankruptcy laws, progressives were right to try to stop it - and not just because it was an immoral move to legalize usury. We were right because as the New York Federal Reserve Bank reports, the bill played an integral role in the recent foreclosure surge that crushed the economy.
In the past, bankruptcy laws made sure debtors first and foremost continued paying their mortgages so that they could stay in their home. But the 2005 legislation effectively compels debtors to first pay off their credit cards, meaning many then have no money left to pay their mortgage. The Feds report estimates that the bankruptcy bill is causing 32,000 more foreclosures per quarter than the economy would have already generated. ......
A guy in a suit scateboarding down a canyon road at 60 mph. Pretty awesome.
By Joseph Stiglitz, Vanity Fair
No. 1: Firing the Chairman
In 1987 the Reagan administration decided to remove Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and appoint Alan Greenspan in his place. Volcker had done what central bankers are supposed to do. On his watch, inflation had been brought down from more than 11 percent to under 4 percent. In the world of central banking, that should have earned him a grade of A+++ and assured his re-appointment. But Volcker also understood that financial markets need to be regulated. Reagan wanted someone who did not believe any such thing, and he found him in a devotee of the objectivist philosopher and free-market zealot Ayn Rand........
No. 2: Tearing Down the Walls
The deregulation philosophy would pay unwelcome dividends for years to come. In November 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act -- the culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial-services industries, and spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm. Glass-Steagall had long separated commercial banks (which lend money) and investment banks (which organize the sale of bonds and equities); it had been enacted in the aftermath of the Great Depression and was meant to curb the excesses of that era, including grave conflicts of interest.......
No. 3: Applying the Leeches
Then along came the Bush tax cuts, enacted first on June 7, 2001, with a follow-on installment two years later. The president and his advisers seemed to believe that tax cuts, especially for upper-income Americans and corporations, were a cure-all for any economic disease -- the modern-day equivalent of leeches. The tax cuts played a pivotal role in shaping the background conditions of the current crisis. Because they did very little to stimulate the economy, real stimulation was left to the Fed, which took up the task with unprecedented low-interest rates and liquidity. The war in Iraq made matters worse, because it led to soaring oil prices. With America so dependent on oil imports, we had to spend several hundred billion more to purchase oil -- money that otherwise would have been spent on American goods. Normally this would have led to an economic slowdown, as it had in the 1970s. But the Fed met the challenge in the most myopic way imaginable. The flood of liquidity made money readily available in mortgage markets, even to those who would normally not be able to borrow. And, yes, this succeeded in forestalling an economic downturn; America's household saving rate plummeted to zero. But it should have been clear that we were living on borrowed money and borrowed time.
The cut in the tax rate on capital gains contributed to the crisis in another way. It was a decision that turned on values: those who speculated (read: gambled) and won were taxed more lightly than wage earners who simply worked hard. But more than that, the decision encouraged leveraging, because interest was tax-deductible. If, for instance, you borrowed a million to buy a home or took a $100,000 home-equity loan to buy stock, the interest would be fully deductible every year. Any capital gains you made were taxed lightly -- and at some possibly remote day in the future. The Bush administration was providing an open invitation to excessive borrowing and lending -- not that American consumers needed any more encouragement.......
....The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, "I have found a flaw." Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working." "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan said. The embrace by America -- and much of the rest of the world -- of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today.
Noah Shachtman, Wired
While the Pentagon preps for a new administration, a scandal from an earlier era is rearing its head.
A Defense Department project, supposedly designed to support U.S. troops, was used instead to channel millions of dollars to personal friends and allies of its chief. The "America Supports You," or ASY, program was led in a "questionable and unregulated manner," according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report, obtained by Danger Room. At least $9.2 million was "inappropriately transferred" by the project's managers. Much of that money served only to further promote ASY, instead of assisting servicemembers......
| ||