The NYT Criticizes the Leftist Candidates for Not Openly Advocating Tax Hikes.

After several paragraphs of desperate pleas for more and more and more taxes with endless moans and glubbering and, finally, admitting that tax-whoring is not a real first-class vote-grabber at the ballot box, they wind up with this puff statement:

“More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them. “[1]

They did recall Weird Walter Mondale and his Tax Hike Speech and the sour  results.

The New York Times, aka the Duranty Papers featuring such illuminati as Maureen Dowd, the Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady cannot risk a direct assault on their leftist party stooges.

What can they do?? Make the situation worse??

This is the usual leftist conundrum and mimics the mugger’s thoughts as he approaches an old lady with her welfare money:” I would like to steal your money,  but I have to remain silent and get behind you  and bash your brains out with my concealed pipe else you might scream and ruin, get me busted and my drug buys for the day.”

Maybe the mugger can simply wait for a weaker mugger to bash the old lady and mug him and get his drugs. That is the central economic theory of the left.  

I thought Hillary was the leading Tax Whore in the election cycle. Apparently, the Old Gray Lady thinks Hillary is not loud enough. Well, shout it out Hillary. Get al gore to show you how to bawl and threaten and howl in public.

Frustration is the norm for the leftists as they dance in their Marxist Follies. Tough times for the Pustule Papers.

rycK

The Democrats Disintegrate Into a Mass of Confusion, Accusations, Froth and Foam.

The Democrats, true to the Marxist Molds they were cast from, revert to sleaze, name-calling, hate and rants. Isn’t this the usual response to failure?? Can we recall the abuse for Jimmy Carter after he lost his second bid after snubbing Ted Kennedy? Can we recall the abuse for George McGovern, the most dedicated Marxist and loyal servant of the far leftist mandates?? In a recent article in the Washington Compost we read[1] some hate messages directed toward the leftist leadership in our worthless Congress:

“Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.”

The phony leftists are the "Stockholm syndrome." They invented the Lose and Bawl syndrome.

“Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.” A strange flight from leftist  reason by Dingy Harry. He dumps nasties  in his own nest? He criticizes the Queen of San Francisco Massage Parlours? Such arrogance and disloyalty.

“Barney Frank (D-Mass.) called it a "hold and fold" strategy: Senate Republicans put a "hold" on Democratic bills, and Senate Democratic leaders promptly fold their tents.” A call on cowardice? Probably.

From Dingy Harry: “I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said on the chamber floor. "I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn't keep my word.”

We read your words. They are insulting, sultry, defective and un American.  Your failure is noted even by your own party.

Your word is defined as worthless by your own party. Say bye bye to your job. You can help Pelosi move out of her office as well.

“We understand the speaker can pass bills only with Democratic votes. And we know she understands the Constitution and the closely divided Senate requires Senator Reid to pick up 20 percent of Senate Republicans just to get a vote on something, let alone pass it," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman.”

“The 60-vote threshold has become the flashpoint for the intramural Democratic dispute.”

It is remarkable that they can hold to the Constitution as it prevents them from a joint Dictatorship of the Left. Isn’t it too bad that they can’t just change Senate Rules and lower the 60-vote threshold to 30 or 40? That would allow a dictatorship, the kind of government liberals favor most if we read their applause of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and a host of Marxist dictators from Africa.

This display for hate, sorrow and frustration and despair in public  just lets the world know how inept, crooked, sleazy and inefficient our worthless leftists are in government. Given a chance to do something with their temporary new powers, we find that they have bungled the job.

GOOD WORK! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! CALL FOR MORE TAXES! CALL FOR REPARATIONS! CELEBRATE THE VOTES OF ILLEGAL ALIENS!!

YES!

These parasites are sickening.

rycK

Hillary and the Tax Whores Chant the Same Old Stale Tunes: Grunt and Grab

As the dog returns to its vomit the far left moan and howl about the ‘rich’ and how unfair the tax system is. Hillary, Queen of the Tax Whores after, possibly, Nancy Pelosi now enlists the testimony of a rich man to show that his riches must have been gotten in some unfair manner.

From Warren Buffer we read[1]:

“"The American worker went no place, while the super-rich flourished, aided by the tax code," said Buffett, who built Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc into a holding company with a market value of $230 billion. "If you believe in a trickle-down theory, nothing has trickled since 1987."

Well, Buffy, why not just give away your billions to the government?? Who would object? That is a tax option you might be unfamiliar with. Give it a try!

This is interesting [and a lie] as the net wealth of Americans has increased significantly in the last half century in terms of stock ownership, home ownership, 401(k) ownership and other affluence metrics. Investment is critical to economic growth which benefits everybody. The converse of this, when the marginal propensity to save approaches zero, guarantees a minimum of wealth and poverty. Education and intelligence determine much of the financial outcomes of Americans. Those who insist on sloth, drug addiction, crime and other antics, many of which are celebrated by the left, usually mean grinding poverty. Our prisons are stuffed to the walls with drug dealers, illiterates, perverts, and muggers and school drop-outs who made small fortunes until they were caught or shot by their peers. Do we hear of Democrats criticizing the riches obtained from drug sales in California?? No. Who complains of Fidel Castro when he eats expensive food from Italy?

The distribution of income, wealth and such is very complicated process[2] and subject to much political interpretation. The median household income in the US is given as $48,201 for the year 2006.  We find numbers like this at Wikipedia:

“19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20% earned less than $23,202.[7] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase slowly in the 1970s, and has increased more quickly since then.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and 57,657.[10]”[3]

Translated, this means two important things:

[1] People who are industrious and get a good education and stay away from drugs and crime tend to make it to the top. Surprise! Most of the wealthy in the US are nouveau riche, meaning that they made the money themselves. The 6.37% above who earn 1/3 of all income also provide millions of jobs and investments for growth.

[2] People who provide the investment are the ones who provide the new jobs that create growth—not the government. The drug addicts, poor, ignorant, AIDS-infected, criminal elements, flunkies and other assorted citizens who cannot seem to make it in this country have much lower incomes, as they should. Should we give free money to drug addicts and open the iron doors of the jails to ‘make things equal?’

We are then faced with the questions:

Why should those with talent for making money and creating jobs and wealth be penalized when they are the actual and functional benefactors of our economic society?? Show us a socialist government that has provided the level of income and wealth and health care that we have in the US. Oh, yes! They can always cite Sweden or Switzerland, the places where 150 years of dirty gun sales and more centuries of dirty money hide. Sure. Show us how anybody in Sweden’s lower median will ever own a private home and a car. Their tax rate is about 70%. Why not talk about the USSR and how that turned out? What happened in Africa? Those two were always leftist ‘projects’ that had great promise for ‘equality.’ Let us talk about Cuba or North Korea or Nicaragua in terms of income levels.

Want to see who the poor are and where they live?? Just make up a table where you sort out the poorest countries and then look at their governments. High, are they, in Marxism and socialism?? Yes.

Mexico has leaders that talk like this and what do they provide their citizens? France just voted out the socialists when the French government spending finally exceeded 50% of the GDP. Inefficiency and poverty occur when too many people want to ‘lead’ and invent ‘social programs’ and interfere with capitalism. Capitalism has crushed socialism like a rotten pumpkin. Marxism is a disgrace. Hillary and her tax grunts would give us a form of financial apocolocyntosis[4] that would economically pumpkinify our society. The left cannot compete with success so they offer failure in return for a chance to become elites and dictators. They know how to spend your money!

The answer to this question is obvious in political terms. The tragedy that half of  all Americans are below the median income level is unfair anti-Shavian, grossly capitalistic and unacceptable to politicians who promise that the ‘poor’ deserve to share in the wealth on some form of ‘equality’ as defined by politicians. This is so inequitable that we have to eliminate the top half of median. The liberal Democrats have enough tax schemes to actually do this and that is their goal. Hillary will raise taxes “for your own good”[5] She couldn’t even write her own book.

Thus the losers and unfortunates of society are offered free money for their votes. This is the old Democratic Way as defined by the liberals and their applauding Marxist allies. The historical Catch 22 to this entire economic splendor is that under socialism, Marxism or other variants of massive government control, the promised notions of prosperity and equality have failed. Every time the promise is made to ‘redistribute’ the wealth, the only people who come wealthy are the leftist elites who grunt and grab the wealth of others: Kennedy Klan,  Vinegar John Kerry[6], both Clintons, Rockefellers, Fidel Castro, 150 or African Marxist dictators, Russians ‘leaders’ like the Brezhnevs and the current very wealthy Putin  and his rich KGB associates.

With the phony FDR Social Security on the financial rocks, the propensity for ruining the healthcare system with gross inefficiency and high costs, the burden of 20,000,000 illegal aliens and Global Warming costs one has to wonder why we should give up our inheritances?? What would the government do with the money?? Hire more social workers to address crime, education or drug abuse?? Spend it on ‘education?’ Would they spend the new tax monies on an affirmative action program for illegal aliens so they could ‘redress the sins of the past?” Of course.

The ugly truth for the left is that we Americans have shown that we can do much better with our money and future than any government has ever attained since the Egyptians and Romans. These leftist social parasites who disguise themselves as liberal Democrats will grunt and groan for our money in terms of higher and higher taxes and attempt to reduce us all the poverty level. That is the signal achievement of the left! They always destroy progress. They only win when they force others to lose.

Unless you are a drug addict, loser, pervert, Communist, illegal alien or racist just

 SAY NO TO LIBERALS.

Think about it.

rycK

The New York Times Advises: How [not] to Defuse Iran

We can always depend on the New York Times [aka The Duranty Papers] to muddle the issue on terrorism with incoherent mumblings intelligible only to policy wonks, certain Methodists and those of the mentally disnimble fraternity.

In the current turn-of-the-old-rusty -crank, the NYT showcases some ‘experts’ who know how to deal with Iran and the development of nuclear weapons. They both hail from prestigious organizations suggesting somber and objective study.

Op-Ed Contributor

How to Defuse Iran  By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett Published: December 11, 2007[1]

The lead paragraph ends with the question [really a statement] “What do we do now?”

Let us take a wild guess and start with diplomacy!! Somebody put up odds on this.

“Clearly, the United States cannot ignore Iran. Tehran may have suspended the purely weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program, but it continues to master uranium enrichment, with no agreed limits in place”

So, we must do something it seems. Jimmy Carter did a bunch to ‘help’ Iran. That worked out well. He helped out in Nicaragua and North Korea too. That was swell.

So, then, what??

“At the same time, the Bush administration’s single-minded insistence on increasing international pressure on Iran seems increasingly detached from reality.”

So, embargoes and such in cooperation our allies and the UN sanctions are unrealistic?? Where is the community debate and all those pressures from other United Nations on Iraq. Were they all off the mark? What happened to all those UN Resolutions?

Who are these people who proffer advice: One is Hillary Mann Leverett, a former director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, is the chairman of Stratega, a political-risk consultancy. [2]  One wonders whose politics are at risk here. The other sage is Flynt Leverett is a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation[3].

Lest we be lulled into some foggy sense of addled sensibility about these ‘experts’ we ought to read their hate screed in Salon.com.[4] This is all political fluff from the far left. But, let us see what they offer and who should solve this problem? Salon.com is simply a form of rubber cage for Neo-Marxist loonies, drug addicts and worse.  Notice that the NYT softened their rants for this piece.

“The idea of “engaging” Iran diplomatically is becoming less politically radioactive than it was early in the Bush years, when any officials who broached it were putting their careers in jeopardy. Given official American-Iranian cooperation over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks (one of us, Hillary, was involved in those negotiations) and the current sets of talks between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim that she is willing to change “28 years of policy” and negotiate with Iran is disingenuous.”

Sausages and toothpicks are made like this by little elves that mindlessly grind away on some mundane obligation using simple skills. The phony mantle of New York Times ‘objectivity’ is wiped away here by a simple reading of this sophomoric fluff. Are NYT readers really that ignorant? They buy this camel plop?

So, it is diplomacy again and Hillary has the experience. This is a ‘fresh view’ on international politics. We have seen Hillary’s ‘experience’ in matters like Castle Grande, FBI Files and other follies where she clamed up or lied.

“From an Iranian perspective, serious engagement would start with American willingness to recognize Tehran’s legitimate security and regional interests as part of an overall settlement of our differences.”

We can translate this as a thoughtful concession and apology to Iran’s nuclear bomb-making theatre as we might recall from the Albright Gifts to North Korea during the Clinton Administration. Was that hailed as ‘diplomacy by the NYT?

Now, for the grabber:

“Still, even Democrats who have talked about “engagement” have yet to spell out what it would take to engage Iran successfully. Most hide behind a vague instrumentalism, epitomized in a recent statement by Hillary Clinton’s top national security adviser extolling the candidate’s willingness to consider “carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concerns.”

We can translate this fluff as buying political power by giving money to terrorists, pardoning Islamo-Fascists, Puerto Rican terrorists in Hillary’s case and making speeches at the United Nations. We can incrementally up the tax gifts and win them over.

How did North Korea react to our “carefully calibrated incentives?” Why, they simply lied and continued on with the expensive nuclear gifts President Clinton gave to them with the fervent gaiety and ringing kazoos of Madelyn Albright and Jimmy Carter. Did they criticize Dearest Kim’s penchant for little girls or starvation of his people? No human rights violations here it seems.  Working with the North Koreans must be like French-kissing a yak, something the Clinton administration must have experience with.

The notion that diplomacy works in the Middle East then seemingly demands that we ought to hear about a successful case. Perhaps the undermining of the Shaw of Iran was such an episode? Somalia? The Sudan? What happened to the ‘diplomacy’ that prevented the 1948, 1967 and 1972 wars with Israel??  WW1? Korea? Viet Nam, Cuba? What happened to the ‘diplomacy’ that FDR used to give the USSR everything they wanted at the end of WW2??

The ugly facts here are that the humdrum mechanical  exercise of merely talking and simultaneously broadcasting blather in propaganda rags like the NYT  and then offering our enemies copious amounts of our tax monies [read bribe here] are the only ‘solutions’ to international politics. Peace in our time. Here, as usual, the New York Times brings in some well-trained political chum chuckers to recommend ‘expert opinions” and to tell us that diplomacy really works [with no convincing examples as usual] in the hands of the left, of course. We have heard all this before.

Let us talk about talking about talking and throw money all around the Middle East. There are so many uses for American tax monies.

Iran does understand force as did Saddam Hussein who now sleeps with the worms. If we were are serious about reducing the world’s hopeless dependency on fossil fuels then the  complete destruction of Iranian oil fields is a good idea in Global Warming terms.  We can save the planet! Call Al Gore!

rycK

It is Time to Ask Hillary Some Tough Questions. 
 

Hillary Clinton is awash in legal depositions, piles of FBI files, crooked cattle futures deals, rumors of babysitting the children of illegal aliens as a teen and more. The press have teamed up in a sticky mass to protect this person from pointed probes of her comments, history and depositions.

Here are some fair questions for Hillary:

[1] Can you explain, in simple terms, why you  testified that you did not know about Castle Grande and then the Rose Law Firm Billing Records showed up near your living quarters?[1]

[2] Can you tell us all about Red Bone and your cattle futures speculation? Did you know he was in trouble with  the SEC for investment scams and sweetheart deals?[2]

[3] Can you  tell us if you ever read any of the 250+ FBI files on Republicans your staff kept at the White House?[3]

These are all simple questions and any person running for high office ought to explain in detail. We challenge the press to submit one or all of these questions to Hillary in the next debate.

As an alternative, the Barack Obama people ought to raise these questions as well. Senator Obama appears to be honest in stark contrast to the Clintons.

rycK

The New York Times Gives Another Propaganda Lesson on Hillary

 In the Sunday article entitled: Clinton Talks of Scars While Keeping Guard Up[1] we can learn more about the propaganda methods used by the far left. All is missing here is a few Bolshevik posters showing the evils of the Church, Capitalists, Kulaks and those who would scorn Hillary by raising serious questions about her past.

The lesson begins with the title where, in proper circular logic and harkening back to the Theory of Forms, she talks of ‘scars’ and has to ‘keep her guard up.’ This is fluff of the most sophomoric sort, but that works for the indoctrinated, certain Methodists and the mentally disnimble. Who are they kidding here? This is a blatant whitewash of their favorite candidate which is sparingly camouflaged as news.

Now for the bravery and tears:

“In July 2000, Hillary Clinton stood on a stage at the University of Arkansas and struggled to keep her composure. Her voice was unusually soft that day, her words seemingly unfiltered.”

She struggles to constrain her rage [with false tears]  that her sordid past will not pass away. She is on the very edge of blowing her cool at the press as Chris Matthews found out. Revenge is her most forceful attribute.

““Whenever you have trouble coping, just think of Snow White,” one note said. “She had to live with seven men.”

This is, obviously, a direct attack on those who were genetically endowed with testosterone, a substance she bans within her organization. Her ‘advisers’ are as effectively politically ‘polished’ as the Castrati who can sing the proper songs and not be a threat to the FemiNazis who make up most of her staff. Bill, of course, lived with seven [and perhaps many more] women, Hillary being one somewhat low in the intimacy list. We can identity with her on that one. Bill is a loser. This is backward as Hillary takes the place of all Seven Dwarfs in this nightmare.

“Mrs. Clinton likes to say that women in politics “need to develop skin as tough as a rhinoceros hide.”

That advise is best directed toward her opponents in the primaries. They will soon taste the wrath of this wrinkled old Marxist if she drops lower in the polls. Her deceit and criminal history stand as a red flag to be waved at her self. Barack Obama and Ophrah will wave similar flags as they show up Hillary for what she is: phony.

The NYT toadies attempt to wipe away Hillary’s past with this fluff piece:

“Friends and others say that Mrs. Clinton’s wariness has been buttressed by the years of scrutiny and ego-mangling she has endured. She has seemingly spent much of her waking life weathering public storms, each known by shorthand: Gennifer, Paula, Monica, Cookies and Teas, Travelgate, Filegate, Pardongate, Troopergate, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Impeachment. Among other things, she has also been accused of having a grating voice and bad taste in clothes.”

That is a fair list of her crimes, but perjury, Castle Grande and taking bribes from Communists seem to be missing here. I thought the NYT would be more definitive here and try to whitewash the history books. They lagged behind in this instance.

“She’s been attacked every day for the last 15 years,” said Jim Blair, Diane Blair’s husband. “What else are they going to say or find about her?”

Look to Obama and a little help from the Kennedy Klan for that answer. Her recent money grubbing from various criminals[2] such as  Hsu[3] is proof that she will take money from anybody in a chance to get her claws on the tax base.[4] Like Colonel Klebb[5], she will kick holes in all obstacles to gain political power.

This is a noble effort by the NYT in a single article, but lacks the necessary countermeasures to [1] obfuscate the grimy history of the Clintons or [2] convince the readers that she is really the best candidate for President.

Hillary is a disgrace to politics and when pressed by hard questions she will break and revert to her Communist Monster Image and show us her wrath and spite.

ryck

The NYT Drones on about Socialized Medicine.

 We can depend on the New York Times to blindly support socialized medicine, higher taxes[1] and criminal activity using any and all facts, fiction or fluff. This episode is a teary-eyed hand-wringing analysis of Senator Barack Obama’s omission of ‘mandates’ by the government.  Could we expect an alternative to total government control of our lives by the Old Gray Lady—a.k.a. The Duranty Papers?

The Mandate Muddle By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2007[2]

Now, we must brace ourselves for the usual barrage of venom against those who oppose socialism, and worse:

“Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.”

We can imagine that. But, can we imagine that the experts that have ‘done the math’ are anything other than advocated. Do they grunt and grab at any notion, however thin or empty, that might support the clarion call for world wide socialism? Apparently any ‘expert,’ such as we might find in the scientific community who would question Global Warming[3], has bungled their math since they failed to sing the old leftists tunes. Ignorance must be defined as being anti-socialist as G. B. S.[4] might agree.

“But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care[5] in any form.”[6]

The key piece of propaganda[7] here, not documented in this article for obvious reasons, tells the reader that the nasty old capitalists will oppose any good and well-meaning program to help the poor. This is classic misdirection, oblique indoctrination and a bigoted smear. The conservatives will [always] mislead with propaganda and falsehoods!! This is the Old Gray Lady at her best.

Then the Senator makes a few mistakes:

“First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama’s advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.”[8]

Perhaps the NYT might apply this ‘unenforceable notion’ to the Rule of Law as it applies of illegal aliens and wiretapping Islamo-Fascists.  Could we lighten up on gun control legislation due to the fact the gun laws are unenforceable.

Then:

“The second false claim is that people won’t be able to afford the insurance they’re required to have — a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.”[9]

The government, we are told, will take care of you, but only if you vote Democrat or are not a capitalist. Just hike taxes[10], the constant tune of this Princeton-educated “economist” and Big Brother will feather your nest. It was a howling success for the Bolsheviks, Maoists and Khmer Rouge.

And for the third dip in the pot:

“Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”

There are thousands of nasty plans that were forced upon the citizens of dozens of Marxist states and those who would copy the mistakes of the far left.

1,2,3 You must believe in Me!

Krugman, lost in a fog of leftist propaganda, misses the salient point that our elected officials have consistently and prudently voted against socialized medicine for decades given its lousy reputation, implementation by incompetents and ugly social histories abroad. Millions were damn sorry they ever supported Marx, Mao, FDR or LBJ. Anyone who professes to be an ‘economist’ and cannot tranquilly debate tax cuts has betrayed his own proffered detachment and disguised objectivity. Sausage machine pejoratives such as “Tax Cut Zombies[11]” and other slogans are routinely squeezed off in short, squat brats for public consumption and haughtily flaunted in bright red[12] to malign capitalists, the very people we need to give praise and  full credit to for our outstanding healthcare system. All that the idiot socialists have given us are:  several wars, the phony Ponzi Scheme [13] known as Social Security, 5 trillion dollars of counterproductive welfare payments, billions of miles of busing and street damage with attendant air pollution and millions of pounds of wasted trees from the New York Times Propaganda mills[14]. They now want to control the earth’s natural resources with the biggest Marxist control scheme of all time.[15] Soon the United Nations Toilet Flush Police will search out bathrooms, street by street, to enforce the mandated 1.6 gallons per flush.

This (obvious) misinformation piece would be more effective (with no less impact on the mentally disnimble who have low cognitive attributes) if Krugman would just admit his works here are nauseatingly biased op-ed pieces, in words, and let his readers know he is an advocate and not an economist who has studiously discovered the correct economic pathway here after sifting the facts.  We can appreciate, from this fluff,   what op-ed pieces really are in the NYT as many of us can differentiate objective pieces in other places  from the pedestrian grunt and grab-level propaganda pieces carved out of spite from the discontented political famine and the depths of despair.

Can we say Stooge?? Can we say Duranty Parrot?? Can we say Propaganda?? Can we detect the Grunt and Grab Syndrome?[16]

I think so.

rycK

 Delaware Democrats Against Biden

Senator Joe Biden, the Curmudgeon of Claymont, has attributes that are unsuitable for the Office of President, Senator or any other elected position. He seems to be some permanent fixture in Delaware politics owning to provincial attitude of the voters and massive cash influxes of money from California.

Joe’s career in the United States Senate is one of a far leftist advocate with the peculiar twist of being a hawk on certain issues.

In a letter to the Senator[1] the simple question was proffered:

Dear Senator Joe Biden,

May 14, 2007

Here are some brief facts about undocumented workers in the US.

[1] They crossed the border illegally.

[2] They misappropriate Social Security numbers from our citizens.

[3] They fill out employee forms for tax purposes with no intent to pay taxes.

[4] They do NOT file state or federal taxes as the misappropriated numbers would conflict with other returns by the original tax payer.

[5] When deported for criminal activity they frequently return.

Are these all facts?? Are any or all of these also crimes?? Please correct me if these are not crimes.

He refused to answer the questions about crimes from a constituent. There was no reply to my letter. Senator Carper did reply, however. Biden, like many other far left liberals apparently needs to violate the Rule of Law and seek political support for criminals who would violate our voter laws and vote for him and other liberals.

Here is his latest outburst:

“Senator Biden said the US President is not truthful on the Iranian issue, or he has been incompetent on the case, which makes him 'the most incompetent president in the modern American history'.[2]

Actually, President Bush did not ‘lie” about this or other information about the War on Terrorism, but he did release this piece of State Department parrot cage liner so the people can read this crap. President Bush did not ‘lie” about weapons of mass destruction either.

"If anyone wants to call the president a liar, they are misreading the situation for their own political purposes," Perino said. "The liar is Ahmadinejad, and he has a lot of explaining to do."[3]

Of course he is. Ahmadinejad is the one who denied the existence of such program, but still insists he wants to continue to purify uranium to weapons grade quality.

“Perino said this information showed the White House was correct in believing that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, which it halted only because of Bush's policies.”

This gratuitous attack comes from a known liar in his own right, a reputed cheater who needed to plagiarize some published legal work to get through Syracuse Law School, a person who exercised outlandish braggadocio about his academic achievements and more. Joe Biden and other rabid leftists can attack our resolve to hunt down and punish terrorists while denigrating and attempting to defund our brave military personnel in Iraq, The sad fact is that people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would trade the lives of American soldiers for votes and political power.  Joe’s  background has apparently been sanitized[4] at the Wikipedia once and apparently has been ‘fixed’ again in an attempt to protect his image from the truth.[5]

We can also remember his performances at the Senate Thomas and Bork hearings for the United States Supreme Court and his support for Anita Hill, whose testimony could not be corroborated at the time and has not been confirmed since this shameful incident.

This person wants to be President??

VOTERS IN IOWA: DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS PERSON.

rycK,

 State Chairperson  of

DELAWARE DEMOCRATS AGAINST BIDEN

The Old Red Lady Essays Us on Psychology[1]

We are led to believe, with no evidence, that the Bush Administration conducts some kind of top secret operations while planning an imminent war with Iran.  The proof is given by a curious ensemble of politicians, sixteen strong, who mumble and put out some odd form of guesses at a politically opportune time. Is this politics as usual? Did this report emanate from the Department of State? That location is the usual fetid burrow of the anti-American policy at Foggy Bottom. How many leftist stooges on the government payroll labor to assist Islamo Fascism??

The language of the report is not very specific so as to allow the widest possible interpretation by our enemies, within and without, mostly consisting of sophomoric blather and incoherent  mumblings, but seems to suggest, possibly and maybe, that Iran ‘halted’ nuclear weapons development sometime in 2004.  Some people have ‘quit’ smoking a few times too.  I suppose Japan hesitated a few times before bombing Pearl Harbor.

The mere suggestion that there is some intrinsic disconnect in White House intelligence matters robotically launches a plethora of causes célèbres for the left with fireworks, free safe-sex corn dogs and kazoos.  They hop and clap in concert at the prospect of some hard evidence. There is no event that takes place in the White House that does not become heir to the immediate scorn, demagoguery and spite from the far left.

Harry Reid, who opposed the war from the beginning and attacked the Bush administration in all matters, is now convinced that George Bush is planning an imminent war. Iran must be attacked it seems.  Presidential hopeful Joe Biden “does not believe the President” and that is ample reason to ‘prevent a war’ by threats of impeachment. Biden, of course, was a cheat in college, plagiarized his law school pages, uplifted his grade point averages and is famous for bungling Kosovo and sponsoring the Enemy-assisting FISA act is a Presidential hopeful that has little or no help.  Can we ‘believe” Claymont[2] Joe in light of his past performances? Is this just an excuse to get some ‘face time’ from the press to help? His poll results in Iowa suggest that he might do something spectacular or get out of the race.  

He does not trust them [the bunch at the White House] and accuses them of cherry-picking the facts.  Having no facts to cherry pick or no cherries as a matter of fact, we wonder what Joe and Harry are actually doing.  Slinging feces is the usual intent of such rhetoric.

A solemn pronouncement by NASA that the earth is not exactly either flat or spherical might elicit a similar chorus of outage.  Bush probably tried to suppress the truth for political reasons we can reason using the left-liberal logic stream.

“The reporters pressed on about whether the president was troubled about a possible “credibility gap” with the American people, given that the facts had failed him on Iraq and Iran and that Harry Reid had charged that “the president is not leveling with the American people” on war spending.”

Since Congress spends all the money this is a bit odd.

Of course, Harry Reid has solid credibility.  He is an acclaimed simple stooge of the Islamo Fascists and all can see that. He would defund the war effort and then blame “W” for more lives lost.  President ‘leveled’ with the American people about Monica, perjury, his suspected mole training in Moscow and his philandering and is respected for his candor? Sure. The liberals still howl and rub their oozing sores over the Clinton Impeachment.

The conclusion then follows:

“Just because the facts on which he based his white-hot rhetoric about Iran possibly sparking World War III have been debunked, W. said with his usual twisted logic, why should his policy change?

What facts?? We have a sad song conjured up with feathers and drums by political advocates in Washington that resembles the consensus we might get from a pack of drug-crazed robbers sacking a grocery store and debating how to equitably distribute the loot.

This is the sleaze of politics and the Old Gray Lady pumps it out from her Propaganda pump like discharge from a flooded basement.  They Old Red Lady works her stylus on the shady side of the caves after being dipped in warm Henna and paints the picture  of Bush Administration failure upon the right with every jab.  Sausage machines are cyclical like this.

“Indeed, John Bolton, who must have been paying attention in his Psych 101 class, argued to Wolf Blitzer that the intelligence analysts “got Iraq wrong and they’re overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran.”

As if Carter g0t it right in Iran or if Clinton got it right in Somalia? As if Joe Biden got it right in Kosovo?! Perhaps FDR “got it wrong” at Pearl Harbor.

Let us all recall that Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner did all they could to emasculate the intelligence services that were destabilizing their favored Marxist Revolutions and such. His people are apparently hanging around the intelligence facilities their wrinkled bodies  hermetically stuffed with old speeches by Jimmy Carter and letters of praise for Marxists by Jimmy Wright and they  remain there on the job for the sole reason that they can occasionally attack the Republicans.

“Even though Sy Hersh claims that the top echelon of the White House has long known of the conclusion that Iran had stopped its nuke program, and that Dick Cheney “has kept his foot on the neck of that report,”…”

Proof?? Sy is still recovering from his mistake of writing The Dark Side of Camelot where he summarily trashed JFK and ruined the plastic image of Hyanis.  He has no proof. He is a fluff chucker.

The Old Red Lady ends her screed with eschatological prophecy: “When W.’s history is written, he will be seen as the rebellious teenager crashing the family station wagon into his father’s three most cherished spots — diplomacy, intelligence and the Gulf. :[3]

Bill Clinton’s history is already written on the outhouse walls, and it is disgusting, but he is still the prime choice of the left to get back into the White House.  His close connections to the Asian Communists is now amplified by the indictment[4] of one of Hillary’s close friends Norman Hsu, who can be added to a long list of criminals that are close friends with the Clintons ($800,000 worth[5]).  They do seem to attract dirty money from Marxism-linked Asians—do they not?? So does Al Gore.  Can we use the word bribe here?

Can we use the word frantic to describe the left and the word propaganda to describe how the New York Times manufactures any and all forms of political help for the far left? Check out Hillary’s plunging poll stats for an answer to this. [6]

I think so,

When President calls out Iran to ‘come clean’ the left will fume and the New York Times Propaganda Staff will prepare some more Pinch Pustules for the liberal Democrats to chuck at the President. [7] We anxiously await the next propaganda round from the left.

 rycK

Frank Rich Expounds on Slick Willie’s Pratfall.

Frank threw this out from the Old Gray Lady two days ago.

“By telling an Iowa audience on Tuesday night that he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning,” Bill Clinton committed a double pratfall[1]. Not only did he refocus attention on his wife’s most hazardous issue, Iraq, just as it was receding as the nation’s Topic A, but he also revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs[2] of the Clinton White House.”[3]

That was profound.

Here is a stunning piece of ethereal logic from this article worthy of the Pulitzer Prize:

“That history cannot be rewritten in any case, by Bill Clinton[4] or anyone else. But future history is yet to be made. In the year to come, it will be written by the candidates and the voters, not by those journalists who, as the old saw has it, lay down history’s first draft.”

Wow!! Clinton lied and the NYT cannot redact the facts as Walter Duranty (The NYT’s most famous Pulitzer Prize winner) did so well to make a few critical political points for Bolshevism. All this surges forth as fact according to the authoritative Frank Rich. Apparently, Churchill, George Bernard Shaw and Leon Trotsky and others were mistaken about who controls history and the facts must remain frozen in the unmolested pristine state. Sir Winston was a journalist. Is this the end of political spinning? They have to tell the truth now? Does Rich now denigrate or abandon his chosen profession? Bill Clinton has already rewritten history: Read My Life and have a few laughs. No truth-dodging nadirs in that tome. Hillary Clinton never lied under oath about Castle Grande or the missing Rose Law Firm billing record, subpoenaed by the courts?

If we insist on the pure truth in journalism the jobs of journalists will go the way of the buggy whip designers.

A piece of misdirection, always required in propaganda efforts,  pops up here  in the midst of all this rushing river of  truths and that is that Iraq is not ”… his wife’s most hazardous issue.” Did Frank misdadir[5] here? The issue that will sink her is the incessant mongering for more and higher and punitive taxes. Next to that, a close second, is her waffling on immigration and her urgent need for illegal aliens to vote en masse.

But, we can give Frank Rich partial credit for proposing that ultimate truth must somehow be commingled with notions using the future past perfect subjunctive tense adjusted with the appropriate location with respect to the nadir. We understand where he is coming (or going?) on that one.

I counted two pratfalls on Frank’s part above. Anybody get a higher count?? Just think: “But future history is yet to be made.” But, I wonder if future history is really certified and authentic future history if the New York Times argues otherwise. The spinners and spin doctoring are back in vogue and essential to propagandists, methinks. They can durantyize anything with impunity.

rycK

Iran and Nuclear Weapons: We Now Know Iran Was Innocent!! We have PROOF!!

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 President Bush said today that a new intelligence finding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003 had not altered his sense that Iran remained a danger[1]

One has to wonder why an intelligence report would be accepted unless it had some political value. After all, the CIA and other agencies who proffer reports are mere political stooges as in evidence by Valerie Plame and other losers who get money for doing nothing but play at politics as an occupation.

Valerie dispatched her political activist husband to Niger to not find evidence on yellow cake sales and he returned, as expected, with no evidence. The fact that he sat at the bar at the hotel gives even more credence to his valiant search. This lack of evidence is PROOF that Iraq never bought or negotiated sales of uranium oxide ore from Niger. Proof positive.

Noting that the N.I.E. has a history of interesting analyses of our enemies with some not-so-hidden pro-leftist agenda flags waving loudly:

From 2006:

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) states that actions by the United States have added momentum to the jihad movement.  The NIE represents the intelligence communitys most comprehensive and definitive analysis and has to be approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence.  It is the first appraisal of global terrorism consisting of the collective consensus of 16 distinct spy services within the U.S. government[2]

I wonder if we could get a few of those 16 to admit that:  we are in danger of imminent attack from outer space,  or that AIDS was invented by the CIA to upset elections in South Africa and Liberia, or that Elvis is alive in the Sudan peddling ham and causing inflation and soaring gold prices. Who reconciles differences among the agencies?? Why dont we just read 16 different reports and make up our own minds?

And we get a We told you so! from the far left:[3]

Yes, stopped in 2003.  All this war-mongering towards Iran from Cheney, Bush, Kyl and Lieberman has been based on false and misleading information.

This must prove that Iran is innocent of sponsoring terrorism and working with North Korea and others to get nuclear weapons. We are safe now! Peace in our time!

So, some report by politicians PROVES that Iran is innocent from seeking nuclear weapons??

Here is  a snippet from the NIE report that clarifies the issue:

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.[4]

This is PROOF!!

They are very certain about the uncertainty of being uncertain. That is what we need from our governmet .

Well, Bush ought to apologize to Iran and acknowledge that he does not have a NIE report deciphering the message that ..Israel[ought to be]  wiped off the map and,  absent the evidence,  he must grovel and beg the U. N. to curtail sanctions against Iran  unil such a report PROVES that Iran is not innocent.

Mr President: Freeze foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan until the NIE gives you the green light.

Sure.

rycK

O Brother, Where Art Thou? A question from Maureen Dowd. [1]

The Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady asks why the radical left of the African American community are ignored or taken for granted by Barack Obama.

“Except for panicked Clintonistas, everyone seems eager to see if the young pol can live up to his potential.”[2]

Apparently, this potential cannot be attained without the grand political support of some of the worst political losers in the black community:

“In Time, Shelby Steele agrees that a President Obama could show “that race is but a negligible human difference.”[3]

“But he notes that Obama’s abandonment by his African father at the age of 2 marked him. “Much of the excitement that surrounds him comes from the perception that he is only lightly tethered to race,” Steele writes. “Yet the very arc of his life — from Hawaii to the South Side of Chicago — has been shaped by an often conscious resolve to ‘belong’ irrefutably to the black identity.” (Obama wrote that he dropped a white girlfriend partly because of her race.)”[4]

Always the unremitting race card harangue we read must from the Duranty Papers.  To postulate that Obama might appeal to a broader spectrum of voters that are not monolithically black seems to be some from of effrontery to Dowd and others. Dowdy Dowd has to avoid criticism from leftist activists to avoid past experiences such as:

“Political aides have been lethally nasty with me and tried to smear me, ... For me there's been a price for being no-holds-barred.”[5]

so she reverts to the norm.

Apparently, the Obama campaign is not exactly ‘authentic’ in the lexicon of the far left or, in her own words the “United States of Shame”[6]and proven political liabilities such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cornell West, Barbara Brazile and Maxine Waters ought to be invited to form some kind of preppie chorus to help the black vote exceed 95%.

Racism is the major starting point of politics for the far left as the New York Times never forgets to inform us.

Sister Maureen has spoken.

rycK

Shut Up Hugo, a Message from the People!

El Cacalero, Hugo Chavez, was humiliated at the polls in Venezuela on Sunday. The message to shut his Marxist, money grubbing, Stalinist mouth was firm. The New York Times will not weep and moan.

From the Duranty Papers, well known for their avid support of Marxism in any and all forms we read[1]:

“It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.”

I suppose they could not stuff enough ballot boxes. They needed Daley or maybe Barbara Boxer to show how to make the numbers work. Puto Hugo missed the salient points of the following political maxim[2]: “It doesn’t matter who votes—it only matters who counts the votes,” or words to that effect.  The quote, attributed to Stalin by Rush Limbaugh, (although that citation is not firmly established) should have been followed in detail by Hugo. He now looks like a fool. The people really did tell him to SHUT UP!! The quote exactly fits the mentality of cheap thugs like Hugo, Castro and his poodle Che and Pol Pot.

“The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.”

I guess so. He threatened to nationalize a couple of Spanish-owned banks.

“The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chávez conceded defeat, describing the results as a “photo finish.”

The New York Times was apparently stunned. [3]

But they continue to whine and whine and whine:

““The power is for us in the community,” said Ms. Veracierta, wearing a red shirt, red cap and belt with Che Guevara’s face on it. She said she credited Mr. Chávez’s government for giving her a $3,800 loan to start a small clothing business.”

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne[4]

rycK

Colonel Klebb Gets Booed in Iowa

There are several theories on political theory, but none actually suggest or mandate inflaming part of your potential constituency. Machiavelli taught that you should do nothing novel or new and just keep to known political mechanisms used by others. The mistakes by other political masters are also very valuable to analyze.

Anybody remember George McGovern and his $10,000 minimum income??  That was the end for this Marxist.

Let us look at what Hillary did, twice[1]:

Colonel Klebb[2] [a.k.a. Hillary Clinton, one of many reputed bed partners of Bill Clinton although the DNA evidence is not available] has chosen to stubbornly persist in supporting a political platform that is not popular, and patently odious, with about 70% of the populace.

She was asked the following:

________________________________________________

Round 1

“The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out [sic] about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

Soft booing could be heard from the audience.

________________________________________________

Round 2

The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president[sic]  to do as much as possible, which I will do."

“Louder boos came from the crowd.”

This marks the beginning of the end for Hillary. She spent two years in silence after her phony socialized medicine was trashed and then toured the world several times to spread her phony concert for third world problems, paid others to work on her image, had books written for her and on and on and on. She was elected as a carpet bagger Senator in New York State and was not forced to answer any tough questions. The media [drive-by and other forms] did not push her.

Her lofty position was secure until she started slipping in the polls mainly based on her inability to stick to the truth. She is a known liar, has lied many times in the past, but that method, sanctioned by Machiavelli if it works, has cost her points in her first test before the voters. In the past, she and Billy the Bimbo Banger could waffle, flip flop and get away with it. Not in Iowa it seems.

We wonder if the Good Colonel watched Vinegar John Kerry[3] slither down the walls of the political latrines because of his flip-flopping. Perhaps.

We all know that the liberals cannot depend on more than 41% of the electorate and have to get votes from the independent party and some Republicans if possible. Kerry only added about 7 points to his solid base. Al Gore got about 9%, but lost 2% to the Green Party. In a nasty party race, Senator O’Bama, who has no credibility liabilities to date, has captured most of the standard planks of the party and differs little from Hillary. He actually supports driver’s licenses in New York, while Klebb’s flippity-floppers on that issue made her look like a fool.

Now she was caught in a vice where she cannot support driver’s licenses in her own state to avoid yet another flip flop,  but can work if elected to the Oval Office  to let illegal aliens vote, the absolute future of the leftist-dominated Democratic Party.

Her tax whoring does not help her in Iowa, but that is no problem for the far left who nothing else buy your money to spend on drugs, sloth, sodomy, abortion, and worse.

And, just what choice does she have? Can she offend her Marxists and illegal aliens who plan to vote for here in several key states and lie about her stance?? The left-liberal constituents are not very cognitively astute so they cannot accept a lie and a wink and support her anyway.

The other issue, which hurts Hillary, is the War on Terrorism. She needs the support of the Islamo-Fascists and other anti-Americans and some have threatened to abandon her on this issue.

Stuck between the two issues of illegal aliens and terrorism, she must somehow work out a way to grunt and grab 9-10 points and skirt the fact that she is a psychotic liar.

It will be interesting to watch her squirm out of this mess.  A loss in Iowa makes her look very bad.

rycK

 Paul Krugman and the New York Times Tax Hike Freak Show Menagerie

 We had to do something after Jimmy Carter bungled several economic factors, wept and talked to his worthless daughter Amy in the Rose Garden about what to do,  saw something like a saber-tooted rabbit circling his camp, and embraced Communism with a fervor resembling that of George Bernard Shaw and wrecked the economy.  He bawled when Daniel Ortega lost the election in Nicaragua. The Carter Malaise Era was financially terminal in light of the phony economics of Keynes and prompted some serious study and a welcome subsequent rejection of the out-dated Keynesianism and resulted in the invention of the highly successful supply-side economic system[1] by Paul Laffer[2]. This really works. But, any economic success that creates growth and corporate business power is ruthless threat and obscene menace to the far left so their unconditional rejection of any successful substitute economic measure is natural and mandated.  Every dollar that escapes the encumbrances and sticky trappings of the government is a tragedy for the socialists. The left cannot operate in a vibrant society where the individual assertively makes critical decisions about disposal of income and wealth on the subjects like education, jobs, training, housing, vacations, automobiles, life styles and such. The left-liberals who had created the  Carter Malaise Syndrome with details such as a 70% marginal tax rate needs  astronomical tax rates, a depression or a war so that they can recreate another monster like Keynes suggested. Tax increases are always the solution to any new leftist economic program, that, and massive spending. As such, the Goddess of the Left is the Common Tax Whore and Paul Krugman is her prophet.

Keynes was a accidental political anomaly from the sorrows of The Great Depression when he made some unsound (but politically judicious) economic assumptions and presented the dictators and political leaders of the time (Hitler, Stalin, FDR and Churchill) the excellent news that government ought to intervene in any and all matters with money to infuse the economy so as to reach full employment or an approximation to that notion. He preached that it was not possible to reach full employment without direct government spending. He, of course, was dead wrong, but what does that matter in politics? How could any of these geopolitical magicians reject the gift of more power to control money and its distribution? The Great Depression was a magic time for leftists who could use this tragedy as ‘proof’ that capitalism could not work.

Ronald Reagan’s embrace of this exciting system from 1981 onward produced an enormous economic boom (just look at a plot of the SP 500 from 1981 to the present and you can see the rise) and almost erased the National Debt. William Jefferson Clinton tried to increase taxes and succeeded once with the most massive tax increase in the history of the world, but after that the further wild taxation was halted by New Gingrich and fiscally conservative Republicans. Clinton was forced to control spending (you cannot veto what is not there in a given appropriations bill) and abandon the disastrous socialized medicine behemoth hatched by his crooked lawyer wife and he unwittingly wound up with a surplus that he would not refund to the taxpayers because he “...was afraid they would not spend it right.” Note the veiled implicit presence of government bullying over private spending.

Of course, supply-side economics is hailed as a huge success during the George Bush terms and has brought us essentially full employment, low to zero inflation and a reasonable management of the debt although spending was apparently excessive in the views of many. The war in Iraq is necessary expense. Like the Johnson-Kennedy Tax cuts, the Ronald Reagan Tax cuts and the Bush Tax cuts, the economy surges when the bunglers in our government are prevented from interfering in commerce. This history can be conveniently used to reject Keynes and his phony economics.

The supply-side theory hinges on the question: how much of a person’s income should the government control?? In most socialist states, this is a very large fraction and many of those are economically stagnant, such as France, England, Germany, Spain etc. Freedom to choose what to do with your money is not something the left can tolerate. Money is power and money can be used to unseat phony or undesirable politicos. No young person in Sweden or France, North Korea, Japan, Denmark, Holland, etc., will ever own much personal property and will be encouraged to take public transportation, watch their spending and take what the government will allow. Americans don’t like that scenario. In many respects, Americans have outgrown government. They can handle their money much better than the government.

Keynes laid his eggs and produced a series of babbling economic quacks that spend their time thinking backward to the stale and spurious government control theorems of Keynes along with a few suggestions from Marx and Lenin. Phony government systems like those in Cuba[3] are frequently proffered up as something to mimic. This frantic carnival atmosphere produces a series of Freak Show activists who disclaim any advances by supply-side economics preferring the demand-side alternatives where the government controls the money. The latest planet-busting tax whoring program is Global Warming[4], a political sleight-of-hand that is being passed off as ‘finished science’ by  a gang of so-called scientists all agree that the US ought to cut back on all energy usages while the People’s Republic and India and others get a pass. Other expensive and gratuitous projects such as Bluewater Wind projects are mandated by the left.[5] Socialized medicine is another economy destroyer.[6] All of these are obscene and counterproductive tax-whoring measures.

The New York Times blindly supports all forms of politics as long as they steered from the far left and keeps a suitable menagerie of fringe-loony writers and political wordsmiths who ‘work for peace’ in the glow of  busts of Walter Duranty, Marx, Lenin, Castro and other leftist luminaries and honk and squeal at the right as they compose their propaganda. To this august list we can add Jayson Blair's[7] name, an apparent understudy of Janet Cook[8], since he manufactured stories from mere political fluff or used plagiarism, the leftist educational tactic that barely got Joe Biden through Law School at Syracuse.

The success of supply-side economics in generating growth is discounted by anybody and everybody on the left as a political mandate. It just cannot be true—even if it is! We expect, then, to hear an ongoing harangue over higher and higher and higher taxes and pleas and excuses for  such on any and all proposed government spending programs.

Like rubber ducks that float around in a plastic tub, the New York Times sponsors a carnival of  stilted political articles to drone on about tax hikes such as this one: The Tax-Cut Zombies[9] by (who else) Paul Krugman.  Here, the tautological chants, drums and assorted tinsels and dyed feathers of Buffo Theater are displayed in a manner reminiscent of some of George Bernard Shaw’s plays that incessantly demonstrated that socialism is the only answer to all problems.  To wit:

“If you want someone to play Scrooge just before Christmas, Dick Cheney is your man.”

This is mere infantile malice.

“So ended 2005, the year that killed any remaining rationale for continuing tax cuts. But the hunger for tax cuts refuses to die.”[10]

Note that supply-side economics is very successful. He argues against success? Of course! Left means ‘loser’ in the current economic lexicon and everybody knows this.

“Since the 1970's, conservatives have used two theories to justify cutting taxes. One theory, supply-side economics, has always been hokum for the yokels. Conservative insiders adopted the supply-siders as mascots because they were useful to the cause, but never took them seriously.”[11]

The ‘yokels’ are the dim-witted or emotionally infected political victims who feed on the fetid chum-chucked bait from the New York Times.

Everybody who lives in this society must objectively agree with the obvious success of cutting taxes; however the left cannot stand the loss of political power and individual wealth. Conservative insiders (Like Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth)  always took tax cuts seriously. This is an outright distortion of the facts, a strong attribute of the New York Times and their contributors.

“Yet the cuts go on. In fact, even as Congressional leaders struggled to pass a tiny package of mean-spirited spending cuts, they pushed forward with a much larger package of tax cuts. The benefits of those cuts, as always, will go disproportionately to the wealthy.”[12]

It is ‘mean-spirited’ to grow the economy only in the sense that this process destabilizes the left.

Note the infantile bleats, slurs and ad hominem bladder splatter that swim in P.G.’s written works. He uses unsophisticated slurs, horror tactics, tactless caricatures, half truths, out right lies and snake oil journalism to grunt and grab for any increase in government power by tax hikes. Perhaps he relies on Maureen Dowd[13] for substance and   style suggestions in his awkward polemics.

Paul Krugman is The Tax-Hike Zombie of the Left. He has less credibility than Baron Munchausen.

rycK