Most of us sense that there’s more to revival than sudden desires for phones or cars, that the consumer isn’t always a mindless mall rat. Rational caution may be beneficial, tax breaks aimed at stimulating consumption, perverse.
Still, the same Chicago trust-o-meter carries some negative messages. In December the pollsters asked: “Have the government interventions in financial markets over the last three months made you more or less confident in investment in the stock market?”
A full 80 percent replied “less,” an annihilating mark for the performance ofGeorge W. Bush, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed ChairmanBen Bernanke. Asked a similar question last month, 67 percent replied “less confident.”
It's what people do when the only two ideas they have -- tax cuts and deregulation -- have been given full expression for the last 8 years and failed. Miserably.
The American President's call "to free the world of the menace of a nuclear nightmare" was hot air, Mr Sarkozy's diplomatic staff told him in a report. "It was rhetoric – not a speech on American security policy but an export model aimed at improving the image of the United States," they said. Most of Mr Obama's proposals had already been made by the Bush administration and Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament and treaties against nuclear proliferation, the leaked report said.
(U) Leftwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular economic classes, and religious groups, particularly Christianity), and those that are mainly pro-government, preferring federal authority and particularly federal judicial rulings over state or local authority. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to restrictions on abortion, immigration, or gay marriage.
Say we're on a bus trip with 100 people and stop to have dinner at a mall. 90 people have money to buy dinner, but 10 people forgot their wallets.
First, we decide everyone needs food, so we're going to pool our resources, since we can spread the cost. Then someone mentions that we could negotiate a deal with one of the vendors if we all buy the same meal. Lots of people grumble but a chorus of "ok" sounds like a majority so the "group" decides to do it.
Everyone breaks up into cliques and elects a representative. Then the representatives decide what we'll have for dinner, and how much everyone should pay ($8 each to cover the 10 who can't pay). Then the vendors hear what we're doing and start lobbying. The Chinese food stall offers $50 to a representative if he changes his vote. The pizza place offers to throw in free cookies if they are chosen. Finally, we find out that we're all having Filet o Fish value meals, with Diet Coke and fries.
When the reps go to pay, they realize they don't have enough money. More than 10 people didn't pay, or someone pocketed some money. It changed hands about 3 or 4 times. They have to order some cheaper food to get enough.
Everyone lines up to get their food, but at the end, there are 7 people in line and the food has run out. The 7 have to buy their own meal, but one of them is a person who forgot their wallet. A friend pays for his meal.
The guy who paid for three meals is really pissed off, and he uses the f-word about 10 times a minute for the entire bus ride home when talking to his friend. He also makes loud comments about the manhood of one representative and threatens to beat up another. The seven people who didn't get food are angry. Several people hated the fish and just ate fries. Some gave their sandwich to others, but a few just threw them out. That pissed off two fat people who were still hungry later on the bus and a couple other people on general principle, who lectured the others. When we got back home, most people asked, who is the moron who came up with that idea?
Now comes "The Detainee Episode." No, not Brooks again. He learned his lesson. Liberal bloggers and columnists who are wringing their hands dry over Obama's continuation of George Bush's policies with regard to enemy combatants (now "detainee who lent substantial support to al-Qaeda") and other aspects of the war on terror (now "overseas contingency operation") such as electronic eavesdropping.
Now, with yet another slap in the face of social justice advocates, who had been led to believe that Obama's campaign of change would mean something other than escalation and militarization of the same old drug war, the administration promises more marijuana possession arrests at the federal level.You can't make this stuff up!
The District Court dismissed the complaint because then-President Bush and Vice President Cheney argued that state secrets would be exposed if the case were litigated. During oral argument before the 9th Circuit, Obama echoed the state-secrets argument made by Bush and Cheney. Similarly, the president who promised "change" is wielding the tool of state secrets in aiming to dismiss, without the gathering of evidence, challenges to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which entailed warrantless phone or e-mail interceptions of American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
UPDATE: Just a word to people who would make me out to be a hater. I hate. But note the title of this series of posts. I hated W, too. I just want to make sure people who voted for Obama realize that, when they said he was different, they were mistaken.
“Allowing institutions to fail in a structured manner supervised by appropriate regulators offers a clearer exit strategy than allowing those institutions to drift into government control piecemeal,” the report said."
It still makes no sense to impose high taxes on them because those entrepreneurs are more likely to use the cash productively than the government. Indeed, from the beginning of Silicon Valley, wave after wave of millionaires have funded the next wave of business successes through angel financing and venture capital. Obviously, that would not have been possible under Piketty's 80% tax rate.It's an expanding pie, which Edwards says repeatedly. But who expands the pie? Many people would like to think government does, and there is some evidence that infrastructure is a net good. But looking at the proportion of medical advances and high-tech companies that come out of countries with relatively stable and liberal (that's classically liberal, sorry) governments one has to ask: who expands the pie rapidly and efficiently? A comment on the sidebar:
Picketty [the tax proponent] tends to ignore the hardly theoretical expanding pie, like the expanding universe, which is accomplished only by these driven, high-earning individuals who, through no altruistic intent, do not get enough credit for their socio-economic contributions.
Dear Sir, If you were to decide for ANY system, rich ,poor tax, social giving, war machine, what each of us have to ask, if I put X dollars into it, what will be the end product. If the STATS ,shows that one group gain with no limits, then it is wrong. if however, it balance itself i.e for example if the poor have enough to eat, send their kid to a good school, be able to see a doctor when they are sick,without losing the roof over their headhave a roof over their heads, the rich can have ALL THE GOLD ThEY WANT ,they can eat it, sleep in it and die in it, however since this not the case, we need to tax the rich.
This is still not the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it is a Depression. And the only way out is government spending on a very large scale. We should stop worrying about Wall Street. Worry about American workers. Use money to build up Main Street, and the future capacities of our workforce.