The Biggest Phony Tax Gouge in the history of the Universe: The Clintons and the UN Needs Your Money.

With reptilian attention to detail, the much-acclaimed United Nations trumpets a clarion call to rush money into their coffers and the gilded boxes of their Marxist Dictators. We hear echoes of Al Gore and his EcoNazi Follies in this. Tax, tax and tax some more. But, added to the chorus is Bill Clinton’s recent ‘explanation’ of who suffers from the US and who must pay what.

We can review the hysteria:

“UNITED NATIONS -- Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.”[1]

We read details:[emphasis is mine in all quotes and underlines]

[1] Need for a new Kyoto type treaty by 2009 that required 37 nations to cut emissions by 5%.

[2] The US is the focus on this issue.

[3] Need for $15 trillion to $20 trillion over the next 20 to 25 years.

[4] Current energy expenditures [by business] are $300 billion per year.

[5] Reducing “..greenhouse gases alone will not be enough to pull island nations, sub-Saharan Africa and other particularly vulnerable parts of the world back from the brink of irreversible harm.”

[6] Need for new technologies.

[7] Warnings of “…rising seas, droughts, severe weather and other dire consequences”

[8] Need for emissions “…reduced by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.”

[9] Need to “…refrain from encouraging nations to assign blame _ and added responsibility _ to the United States and other rich nations for their historical pollution”.

[10] The poor and women will suffer more.

As an echo here, we read some of Bill Clinton’s notions on this:

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."[2]

The first point of a propaganda piece[3], start out with the conclusion and them amplify that, lie or not, with all sorts of whines and fluff.

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.”

How do you slow down the economy?? Does that cost jobs? [4] Do you limit production? What does that do to our balance of trade? Do we sell less and buy more? No problem Bill, we can put up the 20 trillion dollars. Just print more money and pass it around.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work. “[5]

So, the US must lead this? We heard above that 37 countries would have to cut back 5% [each].  We can wonder if any of the third world countries mentioned by Bill are in the UN 37 country list. How is China and India to not stay poor given their governments and huge populations? China has 1,000,000,000 poor and India has about half of that.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan.”[6]

India and China made what commitment? They are not polluting? Really?

She is Hillary who supports the Al Gore cap and carbon credit nonsense. [7] Hillary will create millions and millions of new jobs. It seems that all we have to do is to produce cars that get 100 mpg, with a little help from a battery, and what, export them?

This is all political fluff, but is based in the radical Marxism that Hillary and Bill have endorsed for decades. [8]

There are several problems with this:

[a] 21,000 Scientists refute the phony notion of Global Warming and a signal disgrace in so-called science.[9] [10] I am a signatory to this petition. The output of the sun is mostly responsible for temperature changes, cyclic in nature, on the earth according to the Russians. [11]

[b] The eternal hatred for capitalism drives this hunt for ways to ‘equalize wealth’ and get to ‘equality’ and ‘be fair.” We can translate this as punitive taxes and phony social spending. The difficulty here is that when wealth is confiscated by revolution, it seems to go in the pockets of the elite and the poor get nothing. Land reform is a sick  promise and is never implemented in third world.

[c] The notion that the US will have to ‘go it alone’ means that we would have to cut back on green house gases, which have nothing to do with temperature increases, but might require cutting our industrial production significantly. We produce about 25% of the world’s goods now and a 5% cut in the world’s CO emissions and green house gases [GHGs] would mean a 20% reduction in the US.

[d] Alternative energy sources have been celebrated for 75 years, but where are they??

*Solar panels are not efficient and the cost of switching from traditional electricity is very high. [12]

*Wind energy is very expensive and offshore installations would increase electricity costs along the Atlantic Seaboard from 2 cents per kilowatt hour to 11 cents per kilowatt hour, some 500% increase. [13]

*Fusion is a joke. Cold fusion is a bigger joke.

*Public transportation would cost more than 10x what private cars cost now as public transportation does not go where people want. Try to take a bus in Philly or Baltimore to the suburbs and find out why.

*Wave machines in the Bay of Fundy is probably a good idea, but is politically unsound and has been trashed.

*Nuclear power is efficient and successful for the French and others, but is blocked by the environments here in the US, remnants of the old Communists who fled after the USSR went down in 1989.

[e] Ethanol based fuels would not result in a net decrease in GHGs as the process is not efficient. It would cost more CO2  and other forms of energy and not reduce emissions. Switch grass is a better option.

[f] While China is drilling in the Gulf off Cuba where is the condemnation for this ecological outrage?? The EcoNazis can only blame the US for offshore drilling and oil extraction and cannot seem to criticize others, particularly the Communists, who do this.

[e] Any attack on capitalism is welcomed by the far left.

This ‘plan’ is a blueprint for our economic destruction. This is all possible in that the attack on capitalism is much more important than the quality of lives of the citizens or even food. Marxist radicals and their mentally disnimble US ‘progressives’ have murdered 150,000,000 people since 1789  in the name of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ and ‘redistribution’ of the wealth. We must, again, note that the far left have failed in every chance they had to chance things. We can count some 200 Marxist dictators in Africa alone. Then there are works of the Communists the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Eastern Europe and more.

Did Bill mention that the biggest polluters on the planet are the shrunken remains of the defunct USSR, their surrogates and victims and Communist China? They must cut back?

This is just another case of some leftist parasite offering to give away our wealth and society for the praise and adoration of those who would destroy us. That would, indeed, end capitalism as we know it. The Clintons and their radical stooges will do anything to defeat the US in Iraq, Iran on in the arena of world trade. They learned their Marxism well and are devoted to the anti-capitalism crusade.

ryck

comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Old Red Lady Sees Red [and Other Colors] over Hillary and Obama.

The current spat between Hillary and The Upstart has torn a few holes in the best-laid plans of the New York Times and their supplicants. Here we see that the Anointed One has those in her midst that would tarnish her bright and golden path to the White House. Duplicity by the Kennedy Klan muddles the political vectors here and scrambles the theories. An essay by the NYT is in order to set us all straight on the politics here.

The Old Red Lady [1]advises us in her current comments in her article: Seeing Red Over Hillary:

“Even newly armored by the spirit of Camelot, Barack Obama is still distressed by the sight of a certain damsel.”[2]

Not to essay into too many shades or strange colors here but we all must recall the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh,[3] who trashed the image of Jack and his Jolly Fellows. Dowd conjures up many skeletons from the leftist historical latrines with her allusion and illusions. [4] [5]

“She was impossible to miss in the sea of dark suits and Supreme Court dark robes. Like Scarlett O’Hara [6]after a public humiliation, Hillary showed up at the gathering wearing a defiant shade of red.”

Obama may have ignored her.

Red Red Red

“Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off.”[7]

Dredging the history to discuss crossed snubs? Is this petty or to the point?

“Why had it taken so long for Obama to push back against Hillary?[8] “He respected her as a senator,” the adviser replied. “He even defended her privately when she cried, saying that no one knows how hard these campaigns are.” [emphasis is mine in all quotes]

“But Obama’s outrage makes him seem a little jejune.[9] He is surely the only person in the country who was surprised when the Clintons teamed up to dissemble and smear when confronted with an impediment to their ambitions”[10]

This is so obvious that we must think some more about Obama. Perhaps we are dealing with a genuine person here who is honest, straightforward, friendly and dedicated to his ideals. We haven’t seen anybody like this since perhaps Henry Clay or Thomas Jefferson. Does Obama know he wanders the snake pit where pit vipers seek him out?

The word jejune [defined in the footnote on that word below] means lacking experience and/ or poorly informed. It is amazing that somebody can get this far in politics The Latin word is less cordial.

“Well, I reached my hand out in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out,” she said, lapsing back into the dissed-woman mode. “And I look forward to shaking his hand sometime soon.”

Something’s being stretched here, but it’s not her hand. She wasn’t reaching out to him at all.

“The New York State chapter of NOW issued an absurd statement on Monday calling Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama “the ultimate betrayal”: “He’s picked the new guy over us.”[11]

The ugly face of politics shows us that evil, revenge, sleaze and lies mean much more to the vote count than the truth or civility. Obama cannot see this? Who advises him?

“Given her brazen quote to ABC News, Obama is right to be scared of Hillary. He just needs to learn that Uncle Teddy [12]can’t fight all his fights, and that a little chivalry goes a long way.”[13]

Uncle Teddy, on the off chance that he was completely sober, has bawled a few times in public as we all know.

Apparently the New York Times has crossed the boundary of decency and attempts to alert Senator Obama as to the dangers he faces. That is too risky, though, as Hillary is the NYT Anointed One and carries the full set of radical Marxist credentials. Obama seems unfamiliar with Marx.

Something is wrong here.  Maybe Maureen is not a member of NOW and may not last long at the Old Gray Lady either with comments like this.

Obama, watch your back. Billy showed us how far into overt racism he would dive to regain his power and he has more snakes in his sack. Watch your back.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

McCain and Giuliani: The Faces of Janus Face the Future.

We could expect the truncation of the cluster of hopefuls in the Republican primary races. Usually, the weak sisters cluster together in any party to avoid having their dance cards ignored. We expect Rudy to throw his support, how little that might be, to John.

So, we then wonder how the following hot political buttons will be pushed:

[1] McCain and his position against tax cuts.

[2] McCain and his phony bill with Rus Feingold to make political funding ‘more fair’ or other nonsensical words to that effect. It had the opposite effect.

[3] McCain and Ted Kennedy and the appeasement of illegal aliens and the promise to give them free access to the US, access to benefits and amnesty for gangs and such.

[4] McCain and Liebermann and some phony caps on fuel that can only hike gas costs. This produces cost push inflation as it elevates all transportation costs for all goods and services.

Their little cluster party now gives them all the political points they on the War on Terrorism and internal security. Fine.

Ugly Questions for the Duo:

Both are weak on illegal aliens. What do they think they offer on this hot issue?? Amnesty?

The economy is going in the tank so what can they do?? More spending. Tax hikes??

What  about more social spending as in socialized medicine??

Hillary owns the power on the three questions above.

What can McCain and Rudy do about this??

???

rycK

comments? ryckki@gmail.com

Ralph Ralphs on the Clintons with Histrionic Fury: The Nader Revisionist View.

Ralph Nader, whose nadir has been eclipsed time and space and political importance and whose first name is an onomatopoetic word, has given us a historical synopsis of Bill Clinton’s terms in the White House. In the current Newsmax article, Nader Rails Against Clintons, [1] we get a view from a person whose legal skills were challenged by the Gore and Kerry swarms in their attempts to keep Ralph’s name off the ballots in a grand gesture of democracy. No revenge noted here. Any buffoon even remotely aware of the effect of a splinter party might have predicted that Nader would have stolen votes from the left with his Green Party. The theory is clear here.[2]

We read in an attack against Clinton:

“Bragging about millions of jobs his administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80 percent of the workers in the country and ended in 2000 under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.”[3]

Didn’t Reagan create 21 million new jobs and double federal revenues? No matter. Poverty rates are frequently politically kept even with population growth by raising the income level of poverty and ignoring the 600 billion dollars we spend on welfare yearly.

Now, Ralph, before we ralph[4] over the issues of the Clintons, let us conjecture that if Clinton’s victims managed to stumble their way up the economic ladder to the middle class, or, worse, to the domain where evil upper-middle class where capitalists reside, that they might switch parties and vote for Republicans who might be able to preserve their earned wealth from the clutches of the left. Some folk, those who can cope with our society and do well, might ignore the Clinton messages, past and present and future. It is clear that those who cannot tolerate capitalilsm look and act like mere stooges for the radical Marxists. Remember Saul Alinsky? Hillary’s hero.

“The latter so-called ‘financial modernization law’ sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (i.e. pensioners and investors). That is now shaking the economy to recession…”[5]

This from an Edwards supporter who attacks corporations like peons attack scorpions.

“Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.”

No argument there. I think it still is.

“But during his two-term triangulating presidency, he wasn't smart enough to avoid losing his party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures and governorships…”

One must assume here that [1] he could have held Congress together giving their 30 year history of wanton tax whoring and [2] could have saved his minions and followers in the states who were going broke.

And the last gasp:

“It's[sic] small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, ‘Who Business is Betting On?’ Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.”

The incoherent anti-business bent oozes out of Ralph as if he could ever endorse business in any form. Ralph has enemies in business, in the Clinton crowd, but he forgets about Al Gore? We owe Ralph a few kudos for stealing 2% of the vote and sinking Gore’s ship in 2000 and can give him a few paragraphs here to spew his stuff, within reason. We may only ralph over Ralph’s nonsense that the business community would endorse Hillary, the Marxist Queen of the Tax Whores.[6] Business cannot stand inflation, interference by government, high taxes and unemployment, hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, but can use the cheap illegal alien labor Hillary and Obama will supply, for a price. Maybe that is the poisoned apple they might buy. This follows unless business has an escape route in the Middle East with cozy tax concessions given that the US corporate tax is now the second highest in the world at about 39%. Wiring a few trillion dollars of assets to Dubai after the financial collapse of the US economy amidst the celebrations of the Marxists might be the best business adventure since the Honourable East India Company.

Nader and Clinton can agree on destroying the American auto industry and ensure that our oil prices will be astronomical. We can approach the splendor of Europe as they pay 5-6$ per gallon and their young people have no chance to buy property or decent cars. That much we can depend on. With Hillary’s proposed 800 billion in new spending and her phony notion that the budget ought to be balanced we can sure those taxes on the upper half of the population will have to double or more. Nice scenario for business.

The only useful thing Ralph Nader can do is to run again along with Bloomberg and split the system into fragments.

rycK

comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Little Minds Mind the Mindless Meddling in the Democrat[ic] Party at the New York Times.

We can always thank the New York Times as they hearken back to their Marxist Roots and interpret political events with the acclaimed method of revisionism. Today we are treated to an intricate essay in ‘fundamental changes’, an impossibility in leftist politics, but we should read this latest tome anyway for amusement if not for any meaningful content or illumination. All this has to do with the sudden and explosive support for Senator Obama by the Kennedy Klan  thus pushing support away from the proper Marxist choice who would raise taxes and appease our Islamo-Fascists with gifts and apologetics. Some Walter Duranty Spin is usually injected into such machinations in the political area so that the NYT can ‘influence public opinion,’ a euphemism for the crass propaganda that daily gushes from the Old Gray Lady.

We read: “Something fundamental has shifted in the Democratic Party.”[1]

Really? They are off their tax and spend addictions?

“Last week there was the widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize Barack Obama.”[2]

We have not seen that this was ineffective as yet. Does the term widespread include independents and Republicans?

“And then Monday, something equally astonishing happened. A throng of Kennedys came to the Bender Arena at American University in Washington to endorse Obama.”[3]

Didn’t the NYT just endorse Hillary??

“’With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,’ Senator Kennedy declared. ‘With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign — a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,” he said.’”[4]

Now, how much of this is directed toward Billary? Who is the Senator talking about?

Kennedy, in a fleeting instance of sobriety, gives the signal summary of a new age:

“Then, in the speech’s most striking passage, he set Bill Clinton afloat on the receding tide of memory. “There was another time,” Kennedy said, “when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier.” But, he continued, another former Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do!”

This sounds like Teddy just chucked Billary in the can. This “change” notion, actually invariant in terms of the tax mongering and socialization goals of the left, clearly led in part by the Kennedys, is the buzz word of the times. Change, of course, means no change in the leftist lexicon of tax and spend goals and socialism. Change is a rubber word that actually may be translated as no change and can accommodate numerous physicals turns and bumps like a condom. Peace is War and all that 1984 stuff. Change is changeless.

But Brooks then explains all this (at least to his own satisfaction) with this amazing demystification of the Kennedy Mystique, the title of his article, as usual in propaganda, the conclusion.

“Sept. 11th really did leave a residue — an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service. The old Clintonian style of politics clashes with that desire. When Sidney Blumenthal expresses the Clinton creed by telling George Packer of The New Yorker, “It’s not a question of transcending partisanship. It’s a question of fulfilling it,” that clashes with the desire as well.”

This statement is so snarled with political ringers, enigmatic boomerangs and valiant verse that it is completely unintelligible. Somewhere we learn the lesson that partisanship will be transcended by dumping the strongest political vector in the party. Isn’t this really some form of anti -partisanship? We suddenly hear of some 9/11 “residual” that begs some sacrifice and service and we must enter some new era where we must transcend partisanship. This may mean that embracing Obama is the best party choice.

The Kennedy Mystique was already trashed by one of the leftist’s own sages; one Seymour M. Hersh[5] exposed the JFK Myth entitled The Dark Side of Camelot. Seymour flashed a long brown light on the chic Camelot scene and exposed the slimy and criminal history of JFK and his consorts. A contemporary review comes up with the observation that this is an indictment of the mythology of the New Frontier after covering many of Jack’s impulsive sexual intermezzos and other follies including bungling wars, invasions and worse.

It appears that Ted Kennedy has sent the NYT staff into some paroxysm of political confusion and despair. Teddy has crossed the Times by endorsing somebody other than the Walter Duranty Anointed Candidate. Where is the shame? Or, perhaps the Times missed this obvious golden opportunity for partisanship.

And, it was so simple. All they had to do was defeat Bush in Iraq and show that his economy was failing and then get the ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ Duo back into the White House so they could engineer more tax hikes. Now, old Teddy has injected confusion into the best laid plans of the Times.

What do they do now? Dump on Bill for his obvious racism and switch support to Obama? Luckily for the Old Gray Lady, all three Democrat candidates prostrate themselves before the grimy and unwashed Altar of Tax and Spend and support failure in the War on Terrorism and are wild about Global Warming and socialized medicine and giving more money to North Korea.

The fine planning and political persuasion mechanics at the Times have failed to give  Billary a clear path back into the Oval Office.  

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

21,000 Scientists Refute the Phony Global Warming Follies as The Biggest Attempt to Tax The World Has Even Seen.

All leftist politics is based on the notion of redistribution of wealth through the mechanisms of taxes, violent revolution or intimidation mediated with lies and misinformation assisted with propaganda. This current tax exercise began with the 1990 Kyoto Protocol. There have been several phony ‘programs’ and examples of proposed international legislation that seek to reverse the rise of temperature attributed to human activity. There are no firm scientific data that show a correlation of carbon dioxide gas levels in the atmosphere that mathematically correlates with temperature changes. The scientific method demands that any hypothesis must incorporate all pertinent data into any model that may be proposed. The problem with their conclusions and predictions is that cause and effect of the ‘pollutant’ gas, known as carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) is shown to change in manner that does not match a similar trend in temperature. The matter is complex and many scientists and political operatives vie for power and juicy research grants in this exercise in politics. [1]

I am a retired senior research scientist from the chemical industry, an inventor and product developer with six patents, 24 peer-reviewed scientific papers and a dozen successful products that have generated more than 50 million dollars in sales. I was skeptical about the Kyoto Protocols as only the United States was to make major cuts in fossil fuel energy production giving a ‘pass’ to China and India and most of third world. I was finally convinced when I attended a lengthy and in-depth scientific presentation by Professor David Legates of University of Delaware. [2] His presentation was very direct in terms of what the data show and how models cannot predict the outcomes of weather. He has no political agenda. More proof that this thesis on Global Warming is political comes from the Delaware governor. Governor Ruth Ann Minner, a Democrat, who has a G.E.D. as her crowning academic achievement, demonstrated that this was a political dissertation when she “… prohibited Legates from using his title as state climatologist of Delaware in his public statements related to climate change” [3] Translated, this means that any opposition to this attempt to raise global taxes must be suppressed and that any smear tactics available to politicians may be used at will. She also supports the phony and expensive Bluewater Wnd project that will hike electricity costs some 500% . [4]We are led to believe that the facts are in and commentary is not allowed. We heard this in other political arenas such as busing, welfare, The Great Society and more. The left only exists economically on the products and wealth of their victims and a chance for a massive tax increase cannot be ignored.

Matching the mental menisculicity of Minner is Al Gore, the famous scientist from Tennessee who also presents ‘scientific’ proof that the temperature is rising with charts and graphs. The Russians have recently published their comments on this political circus pointing out that the sun has the controlling effect on global temperatures and that a cooling period may be next. [5] The eminent scientist Al Gore has announced that the scientific matter is ‘closed’ and we must begin with carbon emission caps and work out some kind of carbon credit market to solve this problem. Did Al Gore flunk out of seminary? The fact that Gore and his father are intimately intertwined with Marxism for a few generations out to be tip off as the far left wants to attack capitalism and curtailing the energy usage is the best way. Hillary Clinton endorses this ‘cap and credit’ system on her current website. [6] Her ties with Marxism and taxation are legendary.[7]

The Petition Reads:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”[8]

I have a general distrust of politicians as their craft is not based on truth but on persuasion. The disgraced Russian politician and pseudo scientist Lysenko and US liberals have much in common.[9] When I see some movement where huge tax revenues are to be directed into specific areas where politicians or their supplicants may benefit I become suspicious. I have commented before on Global Warming. [10] We saw some ‘computer models’ predict 14 major hurricanes after Katrina of the next year [there were zero] and ‘about the same’ for 2007 and we also saw zero! Where is the top-shelf science in weather prediction when we get 0 for 14 twice in a row?  We saw the beginning of this brand of phony science with the 1972 with the publication of the book The Limits to Growth [11] , a book that made hilarious predictions and made the authors look like fools as they used their ‘computer model’ to alert us that we would run out of out of oil by 1992,  diminish our supplies of  copper and  lead about the same time and then run  out of natural gas by 1993.  Is there no shame here? Can the political left think they can just make wild predictions and that we must follow their follies? Why can they not explain where their predictions went wrong?  The answer is political.

We must remember Rachel Carson’ Silent Spring[12] and the phony ‘science’ behind the DDT ban that was not based on good science. This was a political victory for the far left who vacated the government pressure groups world wide when the USSR crashed in 1989. That is when the Sierra Club and other organizations suffered an influx of far left political operatives who have only an attack on capitalism as their thrust. I have discussed some of this phony science before.[13] This is not science; this is gutter-level politics of the far left. Their psychotic hatred of capitalism is driving this phony Global Warming Circus as a means of producing the biggest tax haul in the history of the Universe.

The current Global Warming effort is political and destructive to our economy.

Vote accordingly

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Complicated Issue of Free Trade and Balance of Trade Explained.

We hear much about ‘free trade’ and laissez-faire[1] economics and other theories, the export of US jobs over the pond, or over the border, high debt from a trade imbalance and other political notions as we spend the next year electing somebody who may be able to influence this process. Politicians offer ‘solutions’ to these problems in exchange for votes we note. Can politicians fix these problems? Did they ever?[2]

Here are the facts, presented before we get sidetracked by meaningless rhetoric and political promises and demands. We need to look at the concept of global markets and such. From Wikipedia[3]  we learn that the advantage associated with making and distributing goods and services is important in determining who will make what and where it will be sold. We have to stipulate that in a ‘free trade’ scenario, that willing buyers and willing sellers will converge in an open market to make purchases and sales. If this is off, then the theory fails. The current world does not exactly conform to this stipulation so the practice and theories of such a trade scenario are fictional.

Adam Smith had used the principle of absolute advantage to demonstrate that traders will attempt to find the lowest cost of items, consistent with quality, so that they can preserve wealth. The only thing that works for those who are allowed to make decisions with their money is that people actually will compare prices and choose carefully so as to not waste their resources. Note that government spending does not fit into these narrow confines. The comparative advantage theory of Ricardo shows that two partners will both increase their output when the advantage is not equal. That works in a limited sense. There is a set of serious criticisms of comparative advantage[4] and all apply today.

We now have to throw in global marketing, shipping, manufacture by having parts produced in numerous countries with electronic and design ease [CAD/CAM or computed aided design and computer aided manufacturing] and lots of other factors. An analysis of the 2007 trade in the world leads us to the necessary conclusion that the absolute advantage mechanism of Smith is now in full force in all markets and participation in markets is price based. As such, those with something less than a highly competitive advantage will lose sales and vanish from the market place. I was studying chemistry at the time I took economics from Professor Jung C. Liu at SUNY, Binghamton in 1971, now, tragically, deceased. I struggled to show, in a mandatory term paper, which is unfortunately lost or forgotten, that free trade would actually favor all countries that could participate in trade in terms of gross world sales, but would not allow even balances of trade accounts among the traders. This notion was rejected in favor of the comparative advantage theory of Ricardo detailed below in the footnotes. Today, I announce that I was right after all.

At this writing, absolute price and supply scale determine who will sell what to whom and the algebraic summation of gross sales and fees among trading countries will define the surplus or  deficit for each participant. Period. Now, there are governmental ways to avoid being overpriced in international trade. I mentioned in 1971 that the cost from Bethlehem Steel of Pennsylvania selling a ton of steel to Brooklyn, New York was $600 a ton, delivered, and that the English could do this for about $500 and the French could plop down the same ton for only $440. We cannot attribute the difference in costs here to some absolute advantage  or innovations in  French steel making. This price was phony. This product was considered a ‘key’ part of the French manufacturing business, hence a national treasure and political obligation and ‘essential’ to the state welfare so that part of the cost of producing such steel was subsidized by the government. It is well known that Japanese companies pick a lucrative market in the US, get money and resources from the government and sell at lower prices until the market sags and the original manufacturer closes down some businesses and they raise prices and take control of the market. All this is known as ‘dumping’ and is ‘unfair’ and the World Trade Organization [WTO] is supposed to be sorting out complaints and offer resolutions to suit the traders. This is the way things work. There is no free trade when governments subsidize goods and services and absorb production costs in order to sell their products at a lower price so as to capture areas in commerce. The subsidy process perturbs the markets and raises prices.

 So, what is happening in Michigan where unemployment is high and the very good union jobs are lost and more will be lost? The politicians announce that they will ‘fix’ the situation in one war or another. Some believe that they can ‘save’ the auto industry and keep the unions in force. They promise full employment. The simple answer is that Michigan’s auto industry is not competitive given the current operating conditions, rules and markets. Thus, it fails the simple tests of absolute advantage where the auto makers cannot meet the market price of a car.  Can we get these jobs back? No, of course not. Global trade with no tariffs gives many a country a chance to buy and sell but does not imply that the  balance of trade accounts will all be zero at the end of any fiscal year. The efficiency and price level control the balance of trade. If we compare what an hour’s labor can produce in a rice paddy to that of a similar hour in a computer assembly operation we can ask: are these two hours equivalent in terms of production and profits, which is units times price? Certainly not. Only some moron like Karl Marx [5] or one of his leftist stooges would attempt to put the value [read price in his rants] of some item in terms of that amount of labor that went into processing it is folly. These promises are worthless.

Politics works such that when voters or special interest groups lose something in the economic sector then they complain to some legislator to ‘fix’ the problem. So, how would this Michigan problem, or other similar ‘problems’ where markets and jobs are lost to the US, be fixed?? There is no hope for any product that cannot meet the competitive price while decent profits are reserved for the manufacturers unless tariffs are introduced. Tariffs do work. Protective tariffs and/or subsidies as in the French model can both be used to allow the seller to ‘adjust’ their price to become competitive in the markets. There are no other ways. You either meet or beat the price levels or you do not sell unless your government is willing to step in as they have done in the US with grain and cheese. We then can understand why rice costs about $16 per pound in Tokyo and a few cents a pound in Cambodia, the Philippines and about a dollar a pound in Arkansas. Cuba can produce sugar for a few cents a pound, but there is a trade embargo there and the world is awash in sugar anyway.

To salvage the union jobs in Michigan, the federal government would have to probably subsidize costs in the auto manufacturing business in that state by paying part of the hourly wages and most of the benefits of the workers. That is a bit better than putting up a tariff against Japan or wherever when they might respond with a reciprocal tariff on other items and cause a trade war item by item. The short-term apparent solution is a disaster. What happens is that if the federal government simply subsidizes the auto manufacturer then the actual cost of a car now has two components: the cost of production and the tax or debt burden from the subsidy. As such, the actual cost is now higher than market and even ever higher allowing for the inefficiencies associated with collection of taxes and funding the subsidy. Arguing that workers whose jobs were rescued would now make up the difference in taxes to balance this all out is folly. Those workers will merely buy products from more subsidized industries and the prices will again be higher. If we subsidize failure or try to compensate for an absolute disadvantage with political solutions then we will be come more inefficient and will lose other exports due to the now inherently higher costs. The balance of trade worsens and our dollar’s buying power drops and prices rise. And, so on and so forth in the spiral.

The solution to the problem is to shift the auto jobs into other economic sectors and make something different where we can get an absolute advantage. This means funding education so auto workers can learn new labor skills. This is all predicated on the fact that any new products or services we envision must conform to the market mechanism of absolute advantage. If you cannot make it cheaply, do something else. This economic fact fails in politics. The unions would now face extinction and the loss of all their members in non union jobs.

In order to remain a competitive advantage and increase growth so we can pay for our social needs and stimulate the economy and also sustain our place in the world markets we need to be the innovators. We need to identify the new products and find ways to continue to cut costs and improve the existing products until their useful lives burn out.

This essay, sadly, is based on sound economics and capitalism and is thus unacceptable to the left-liberal politicians and most of third world. The idea that we should stop making cars is political suicide in the Rust Belt and will not happen. Capitalism is despised around the world[6] and in the United States by liberals,  and generates the evil profits that make some of us ‘rich,’ No liberal Democrat can rise to the podium and soundly condemn the societies in North Korea, Cuba, Africa or many parts of South and Central America. Their solution is to tax[7] the capitalists out of existence and use the phony notion of ‘redistribution of wealth’’ to achieve ‘equality’ everywhere.[8] As we run short of oil, the solution by the left is to stop drilling, throw out phantasms about non-existent alternate fuels, which are not competitive in the markets, and to tax profits from oil companies with punitive intent. There is no better example of a world-wide tax system that will conquer capitalism is the phony Global Warming.[9] [10] This will create carbon taxes and ‘markets’ where wealth will be distributed around the world to those who many not have the talent for production and will ensure that the United States will not enjoy any absolute advantage because the government imposed costs and taxes will from foolhardy social micromanagement programs make us noncompetitive. Period.

There is no way that the political left can hope for any future power base as long as the US continues to be innovative and produce products and services that have an absolute advantage. There are several ways to attack capitalism and our culture and a few were mentioned above in this essay. Capitalism has succeeded every place where it has been implemented and communism and most socialist projects have failed. The left cannot survive in an arena where capitalism is allowed so they will strive to suppress it. Capitalism cannot survive in a place where there is big oppressive government,[11] high taxes and restrictive laws[12] and rules, red tape and where degenerated societies exist.[13]

The choice ought to be clear. Vote accordingly.

The auto workers in Michigan must learn new skills. No options.

rycK

The New York Times Wonders about Team Clinton and their “Slimy”  Use Of Overt Racism.

Today, the Times question some antics by Team Clinton where they might have broached the boundaries of racism and religious bigotry. An article by Bob Herbert[1] poses some interesting questions and makes a few comments:

[1] “Joseph P. Riley Jr….[makes the comment] … He talked about his fondness for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said: “It’s tough when you have to choose between friends.”[2]

The author comments: “That welcome tone [by Riley] has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.”[3]

The salient question here is to ask if Bill and Hill would act any different if Obama was white.

[2] It gets a bit sticky now:

“This week, while making the remarkable accusation that the Obama camp was responsible for raising the race issue, Mr. Clinton mentioned Andrew Young as someone who would bear that out. It was an extremely unfortunate reference.

Here’s what Mr. Young, who is black and a former ambassador to the United Nations, had to say last month in an interview posted online: “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”[4]

Now, we wonder what the political thrust might be here. The New York Times is very comfortable with black-on-white overt racism of the Al Sharpton, Quannel X[5] and Cynthia McKinney[6], Kamau Kambon [7] sort. The Times is also willing to tolerate and even celebrate comments by Senator Byrd like:

““Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds] [8]”

Al Sharpton speaks:

White folks were in caves while we were building empires.... We taught philosophy, astrology, and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos.[9]

And: "What’s wrong with denouncing white interlopers?"[10]

Indeed, what is wrong here? The New York Times, always supporting black on white racism for political reasons, cannot bring to the point where they would inflame black racists and risk losing votes.

The Times successfully avoided any damage on those issues. The situtation now is a bit sticky:

“The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.”

And,

“Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.”

The author brings up serious questions about white on black racism where high political stakes are on the chopping block. Except  for Ron Brown, it is difficult to identify any high-level blacks in the Clinton Whitehouse or later organizations.

Dick Morris seems to think that Bill and Hill are staging a backlash of white agaisnt black votes in later primaries so as to squash Obama. [11]

“Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.”

This is slimy enough.

 After all, if a lot of whites vote for Obama then Hillary could lose. Morris thinks that Bill is trying to draw the heat and apparently shift white voters from Obama and magically attract more black voters.[12]

Both Clintons are gutter-grade warriors  and have used just about any political tactic, howeve sleazy, to dismount their enemies from their steeds. The shapeshifters in the Clinton Team bow and weave to push and pull varous votes into compartments that favor them.

We wonder if the Times will tolerate this much longer as such a placation of the Clinton’s Overt Racism collides with the solid racist work the Times  have acienved in the past. Can the Times resolve this in a way that their favorite Marxists get elected and preserve the black voting block??

We shall see.

rycK

comments: ryckki@gmail.com

A Prediction Come True! The NYT Turns the Old Rusty Crank and Chooses an Old Rusty Crank for Their Primary Choice.

The Walter Duranty Papers has chosen: “As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’ editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.”[1]

 Surprise surprise! Was this an easy prediction from my previous blog? Too easy.

“Article Conclusion: The obvious Marxist Choice is Hillary Clinton!! What else would the Times offer? Have they ever endorsed anyone who did not have impeccable Marxist credentials?” [2]

Was this the tipping point? The Chief Non-Economist of the Times has been grinding away on Reaganism for many years.

“Now progressives[3] have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.” [4]

The Times pretends to be objective and offer a reasonable critique of all ‘candidates’ that have survived the so-called ‘democratic process, ‘but all must narrowly confirm to at least the basic precepts of the far left. After all, what else would the Times be doing on this planet if not acting as a stooge platform to launch the most likely prospect to overturn the amazing political accomplishments of Ronald Reagan, our finest president ever?

 Senator Obama has been severely attacked by Slick Willie, the abrasive and vindictive Bimbo Banger and the person who managed in 1993 to give us the biggest tax increase in history according the Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. [5]  Others [Leahy and Kerry] have chosen Obama according to various criteria [6] that had to do with something else than taxation. They will both vote for higher taxes.

Clinton’s leading pit bull, one James Carville once gave us a famous false tax-based  prediction of the New Jersey gubernatorial race as Florio (of asbestos fame) had increased taxes and Whitman offered a tax cut:

“In 1993, Clinton campaign strategist James Carville announced that the off-year governor's race in New Jersey between incumbent Democrat Jim Florio -- who had raised taxes in 1989 -- and his challenger Christine Todd Whitman -- who called for a 30 percent across-the-board income-tax cut -- would be the burial ground of Republican advocacy of tax reduction.” [7]

The good citizens of New Jersey now face bankruptcy from the wild spending of Democrats after Whitman left and now want to hike turnpike tolls:

“Gov. Jon Corzine wants to shore up his state’s troubled finances by sharply raising tolls. If he gets his way, the cost of driving most of the turnpike could eventually rise from $5.85 to $48, providing money for both debt reduction and public transportation.” [8]

Is this the burial ground of leftist advocacy of tax increases? Let us watch and see. California may win the race to that prize before Hillary is inaugurated. Gratuitous taxes like this NJ wreckage will only hurt business in the Garden State.

This financial latrine in New Jersey is mirrored in California and many other ‘progressive’ states where spending is out of control. Pennsylvania may reward their governor, who recently endorsed Hillary, with some retribution at the polls if they can. They are currently being tantalized by the phony notion that gambling proceeds can reduce property taxes. As if any far leftist would return money to the tax payers! How silly of them.

The Times offers their reasoning:

“Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.”

This is all some kind of revisionism that is related to the biggest attempt to hike taxes in the world: Hillary Care. The phony objective tome of the Times in this ‘analysis’ here disguises the fact that this is just more taxes, lower quality and a huge increase in government.

Then a little chiding:

“As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)” [9]

Oh, be a Nice Hillary and snug up Billy’s leash a bit.  Don’t be and old rusty crank. Polish off the corrosion, get a new face lift, muzzle Billy for a while and work your veiled racism against Obama so you can grab the Oval Office. Let us see if Bill heeds the advice of the Times.

We have to ignore most of this fluff and stale propaganda as the Times has never produced an objective piece of opinion fluff in many decades. The point here is that Hillary is an anti-anti-communist [a double negative that has an obvious definition given her reference for Saul Alinsky) and Obama’s acknowledgement that the Reagan Era produced economic results is heresy. How could he say that!

The central issue here is massive government and control of capitalism and Hillary sings the elegant left songs. The Times does not condemn Corzine or other progressive lackeys who have brought their state and city economies to the precipice of bankruptcy, but always offers and finds new ways to support any tax increase and increase in government that might offer a political solution.  We will soon hear that California and New Jersey deserve a federal bailout. That is called being progressive.

And, if the outcome of a Hillary Administration would be appeasement to Islamo-Fascists, given the politically successful North Korean Model, which was wonderful. Cure our foreign problems by spreading around some US tax money with our sincere apologies.  Higher debt added to the incorporation of some 15 million illegal aliens to the voter rolls would prompt the Times to brag that they have participated in the biggest destruction of a capitalist society since Rome was sacked.

Be prepared for higher and higher taxes, bigger and bigger government and unbearable debt. Those are the ingredients that can destroy capitalism, which is the objective of the Times and their Marxist sycophants.

All the leftists have is a chance to grunt and grab your money and Hillary gives them a good prospect to do this.

A Hillary win then challenges the Republicans to not bungle the inevitable backlash from tax payers and home owners and SUV operators in 2012. Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay have spoken on this possibility for years. We saw backlashes against Jimmy Carter for his sensational malaise, appeasement of Communists and Iranian mullahs and his remarkable double digit inflation.  We saw the 1993 Tax Backlash against Hillary and Bill where the Republicans wrested control of Congress from the 40-year old grasp of the liberals. The inflation backlash is one of the very few political laws in existence that is eventually enforced by the citizens who force a violent change in government [sooner or later] as we saw in Europe and here for many decades. Hillary’s wild spending plans, somewhere around 800 billion dollars, cannot be accommodated with  her phony notions of a balance d budget, massive socialized medicine and the sticky, emotional embrace of Al Gore’s Global Warming.

We now head for an achievable financial disaster where Hillary and the Marxist Times, in concert, are capable of wiping out the value of the homes and businesses of our citizens in a few years and create an environmentally friendly state such as Cuba with its fine health care system. The Cubans love their leader as much as the starving North Koreans love Dearest Kim and we should not be selfish and whine when our wealth is redistributed in the spirit of Communism. Marx would be proud. The illegal aliens, soon to be made the recipients of new affirmative action statutes already love Hillary.

We have time to adjust our 401(k)s and other investments to function in an economy of high taxes, hyper inflation and oppressive government controls. By August, we will know if we need to bail out of equities and shift our businesses overseas. Corporations currently face the second highest tax rate in the world and Hillary plans to raise those taxes as high as she can. Jobs will be lost to other places where oppressive corporate taxes are absent. Prices will soar and the unemployment rates will soar.

None of these financial disasters would stray far from the acceptable political designs of the Times. They welcome another Great Depression. That was the greatest leftist event since the October Revolution.

Think about this and be prepared.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Marxism, Communism, Liberals And Progressives And Why They Will Never Change their Assault on Capitalism.

Politics is an unusual attribute in humans.

We have a comprehensive and thoughtful snapshot of the state of Marxism and its variants written in 1946 by Frank J. Sheed. In Communism and Man [1], the author describes Marx and Engels in an objective manner that is far enough distanced from our current political arena to give us some basic principles upon which to make predictions and confirm some observations offered by the author. When we look at Marxism and its numerous variants from a half century ago and realize that little has changed then we can be confident that the current course of adherents of this strange political will remain invariant in this pursuit of this bent.

Marxism can be simplified by noting that Marx considered himself to be a ‘scientist’[2] and that he ‘barrowed’ some metaphysical theories from Engels and used this framework to push for a major change in society in terms of opposing capitalism.  Engels mumbled about ‘spirit’ and ‘The Idea’ and Marx translated this into his ‘Material’ notions, meaning economics and its associations with property, production means and such.  

Many apologize for the tangled and intelligible works of many authors by using the hackneyed phrase: “What the author was trying to say…..” and then go on to further contaminate the original ideas with their own mangled views. This is almost as nauseating as the perpetual ‘pendulum’ cliché where we are compelled to swing on the blades of some huge cutting machine reminiscent of Edgar Allen Poe’s giant scythe in his story The Pit and the Pendulum. [3] Marx’s intents  were clear even if the message was garbled.

Sifting thru the sloppy works of Marx we can come to his strange social mechanism that allows (always false) predictions of the inevitable destruction of capitalism. We learn about the words thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Here the concept of dialectical materialism was introduced.[4] It is a pitiful fact that Marx never bothered to define his main theory of Materialism as in common with those who produce some incoherent theories that have no change of being instituted. Barrowed from Engels and revamped into some form of social mandate that controls our destinies, we find that when two opposing forces collide (thesis v. antithesis) that this will result in a ‘synthesis” that will resolve the issue. He certainly meant that the two classes he speaks of, proletariat and capitalists,  will suffer some war and the synthetic product will be only one class. This is essentially all Marx had to say and those who follow him do not alter his maxims. Marx thought that if capitalism had rendered feudalism obsolete then Communism would be the next logical outcome and would replace capitalism. This would end the class struggles as there would only be one class—hence no battle between thesis and antithesis. This revolution would then begin in states where there were workers who were skilled enough to take over production and ownership of factories and such and eliminate profit with a revolution. George Bernard Shaw bought into this notion with his Fabian Society and his ‘equal income’ mandates, which he refused to elaborate on, the only social topic he was silent on. [5]  Shaw praised Fascism, Communism, socialism and any and all theories that opposed capitalism. We can, however, inspect the history of Communism to the present and wonder why it persists and also wonder why the original ideas, however faulty, form the basis of many attempts to change our society.

There is no need to sift through the many false predictions here other than to mention that such revolutions did not materialize in industrialized societies, but many such revolutions did happen in peasant societies. They have all failed to lead to a classless society and show poverty and ugly dictatorships as their signal hallmarks. From his Manifesto we read this:

“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” [6]

This failed, of course, but that is no basis for discarding Marx by the left. They still all applaud Marxist Analysis as if this had anything new to add to the rabid anti-capitalism rants.  Marxist Analysis is a circular argument beginning and ending with Marx. Modern leftists and their radical partners still believe and wage war on class distinctions in our society and have essentially one view: equality of income for all. This is all we need to know about Marx and his followers. This also argues against IQ and other measures of profound differences in skills among our citizens. There is no equality.

At this point, we can dump the tangled particulars of Kars Marx sum up and come to the following conclusions:

[1] Marx snarled his own ideas beyond recognition and the attempt to understand Marx is an essay in mysticism and folly. The secret of Marxism is that here is no secret hidden therein.

[2] Anti-capitalism is the only solid root idea offered by Marx and that is what the left depends on today.

[3] The wealth and power of capitalist must be confiscated by any means available and high taxes are the first choice to redistribute the wealth.

So, how does Marx suggest we attack capitalism? Revolution is one way. This failed everywhere it was tried. Barring that, how do the followers of Marx suggest or demand how we attack capitalism? Taxation and legislation are other ways. Bernard Shaw believed in some ‘permeation’ theory where the fundamental strong points of socialism could be presented to national leaders along with the obvious defects of capitalism and they would be persuaded to embrace his notions. He talked to hundreds of ‘leaders’ from Churchill to Stalin. In 1931 he was the most famous person in the world. He made no convincing changing to government policy with his works. Fabianism faded away and is now only an historical curiosity.

Today, the leftist quest for mandated ‘equality’ is based entirely on taxation and legislation that seek to equate incomes that are frequently forced by the Rule of Law. We have had to suffer through the Fair Deal, the New Deal, and the War on Poverty, the Great Society, busing, affirmative action, welfare and civil rights movements thus far doing little to achieve equality while wasting several trillion dollars of tax money. Again, the nuclear glue that binds the leftists and radicals into a tight unit is unanimous anti-capitalism. Whatever happens, capitalism must be heralded as evil and taxation and regulation must be used whenever possible to push down individualism and entrepreneurship. So, we must watch for this and test potential political leaders as to their objective of following Marx.

This quest to destroy the private proclivities of the successful and potentially successful to make their own decisions about jobs, education[7], investment and business ownership is eternal and no set of facts can dissuade the leftists and their stooges to say anything nice about capitalism. Ronald Reagan [8] was hated as an anti-communist and the left formed ranks as anti-anti-communists against him and his followers thus avoiding the tacky label of communist even though this is an amusing double negative that shows obvious  favor to standard communism.

We can look at the political leaders and their tautological essays on taxes [9]and racial policies and government controls of nearly every aspect of our society for proof that the shrunken remains of Marx and his sycophants are sculpted in lights and are beacons for justice and equality on his planet.  They can buy justice for all with your money. The New York Times whines this sorry song every day.

That is all they have and the comments about  are all we need to dissect the political slogans and fluff we read in the New York Times and other socialist grist mills of the left. We can merley test their proposals against the notion of high taxes and big government. So, here goes!

So, what does Hillary espouse? Does she have huge taxes in mind? Will she ‘raise taxes for your own good” in the spirit of Marx. Is Obama any different? How about Edwards?

We go to Hillary’s website for her own words:

Hillary's economic blueprint to restore the American middle class includes:[10]

Lowering taxes for middle class families.

No tax increases mentioned here? They only pay 4% of federal taxes now. Who pays the rest? Do we tax the upper class here to make up the difference.

Providing quality, affordable health care to every American.

Hillary states: “Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs.” How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? How do you ‘pay’ for or provide tax credits and balance the budget? According to leftist theories any tax credit has a “cost.” What is the cost here?

Making college accessible and affordable.

How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Do we subsidize students? Do we offer college to all even though only 1/3 of the population can survive college? Do we raise taxes and subsidize more education?

Confronting the growing problems in the housing market.

What does that mean? A bailout for homeowners who fail to make mortgage payments? How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Should we freeze interest rates or subsidize mortgage payments?

Bolstering retirement security by promoting savings and investment.

How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Social Security, a rancid Ponzi Scheme of the New Deal is going broke and Hillary and other Democrats refused to address this issue in the first months Bush’s second term.

Returning to fiscal responsibility and moving towards balanced budgets.

How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? What spending cuts will Hillary make other than the military? Hillary can balance the budget? What was her position on the Balanced Budget Amendment?

Harnessing innovation to create the high-wage jobs of the 21st century.

How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? What can we produce and sell  with high-wage jobs? Cars? Oil? Textiles? Computers? The high energy costs of the proposed ‘carbon caps’ and carbon ‘credits’ will only raise production costs in the US while giving a break to third world. How do we get high-paying jobs from this? Cold fusion? Forcing shortages? Trading our SUVs for tennis shoes?

Creating a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to jumpstart research and development of alternative energies.

How do we pay for this? Higher taxes? Where does this 50,000,000,000 come from? Taxes?

Hillary proposed a 50 billion dollar punitive tax on Exxon. Will that lower gas prices at the pump? Should we built expensive windmills at a mere 500% increase in electricity costs to consumers?[11]

Strengthening unions and ensuring our trade laws work for all Americans.

We need more union labor? Why? Doe featherbedding help our trade? Do we subsidize auto production in Michigan with federal taxes?

So, Hillary Clinton, a known Saul Alinsky Marxist enthusiast, will ‘balance the budget’ and call for tax cuts for the lower half of our citizens who pay only 4% of the federal taxes now and will provide socialized medicine and more with no new taxes?

The tax issue is avoided here. Hillary cannot do anything in the future in terms of balanced budgets without cutting spending and increasing taxes. A repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts means a tax increase on those who create new jobs. Such a repeal will guarantee lower tax revenues, which will require more debt. The left cannot remember Jimmy Carter.

If you look carefully at the proposals above you will notice that every item noted above is focused on the proletariat and confiscating  tax money from the capitalists to form some kind of ‘equality’ is the obvious  intent. Every item is based on Marx.

Hillary is a standard left-liberal 60s radical who believes only in big government and tax increases.[12] We have seen what this looks like before during the Jimmy Carter Era with 70% tax brackets for those who run out industries and banks and produce jobs and services and products. This is an attack on investment as the Marginal Propensity to Save for the lower half of our citizens is essentially zero. Investment will suffer.

There is little here that differs from the strange notions of Karl Marx [13] and this is standard anti-capitalism. All we have to do is to look at California and New Jersey to see what happens when business is over taxed and free-flowing social policies are traded for votes regardless of the cost. Debt is the reward. Where is the Clinton policy on Global Warming? [14] This is potentially the biggest tax increase in the history of the universe. Here it is:

“Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.”[15]

Cap means limits on emissions and ‘trade’ means giving third world either US taxes or production concessions that would shift our industrial production to Africa or South American or Asia. This would constitute a huge tax increase and government strangulation of free trade and business in the US.

What is her stand on illegal aliens?

“Clinton and her busload of traveling press moved from there to the popular local Mexican restaurant Lindo Michoacan, where a “roundtable” that was actually square passed a microphone around to tell her people’s concerns about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures. She took notes and munched on tortilla chips.

In broken English, one woman told Clinton how she wasn’t making money as a broker anymore.

“I have no income at all,” she said. “So how will I survive?”

Choking up with emotion, the woman said, “In my neighborhood, there are brand-new homes, but the value is nothing. I’m glad you are here so I can tell you, because you’re going to be the president, I know.”

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.” [16]

This is crude pandering for the votes of illegal aliens. She needs lots of votes She will do anything she can to ‘share the wealth’ with ‘the poor’ who commit multiple felonies to get here and avoid taxes. She will tax ‘the rich,’ which is the upper half of Americans.  Note that the Rule of Law is used selectively against the enemies of socialism and Hillary can ignore the fact that she was speaking and pandering to illegal aliens.

All They Have Is Your Money And They Will Say And Do Anything Necessary To Get Some Or All Of It.

rycK

comments? ryckki@gmail.com

The Old Red Lady of the NYT Characterizes the Attacks by the Clinton 2-Headed Monster as Necessary?

We are always thankful that we have a form of political mirror that reflects the hopes and dreams and even some warts from a given sector of our society. The New York Times is the standard, turn-the-crank propaganda machine for the far left and has constantly attacked conservative and sometimes moderate candidates if they stray too far from the Marxist Latrine. The anti-Reagan, anti-tax cut and anti-military forces at the Old Gray Lady run the usual grist-mill level articles like a sanitation engineer dumps the dumpsters. The trash always goes in one direction. Today, some uncertainty is detected in the current missive to the liberal loyal.

This trash-the-opposition tactic is obvious and obligatory in the mundane political contests and provides a form of cartoon-level wake-up regimen for those whose futures and careers depend on milking the tax base. So-called elected officials peruse the morning edition of this tried and true political reflection of the Walter Duranty Image with coffee and glee. This daily occurrence is an analog of some daisy chain exercise where the notions of circular logic and circular support for leftist candidates, policies and legislation form an unassailable barrier to reason and historical interpretations and give needed solace to the political community. Dogs could ask nothing more from their loving masters.  Today, we have a problem.

The calm is rarely disturbed by political recommendations in this pristine atmosphere except in severe cases where difficult choices are forced upon staff. To choose among several candidates for high office is an unfortunate essay in politics when there should be only one anointed leader. Harkening back to the Camelot Era of F.D.R and Stalin, the intellectual and literary pinnacle of the New York Times, the choices were clear and could be easily delineated by even those only faintly acquainted with Marx or one of his lackeys. The anti-communists were easily identified and vilified daily with aplomb.

Politics is usually defined as something like the development of resolution of choices in groups. The complexity arises when several choices are apparently identical in political weight. For the current Democratic candidates in the wild race for the Oval Office, we find unanimous agreement on bigger and more government, socialized medicine, and support for illegal aliens and the obvious rewards inherent in their voting patterns and the need to soak the rich with more taxes. No argument here. Any tin-plated automaton that would reel off the standard leftist platitudes with emotion and flair would be an excellent choice to lead the nation back to Marx. A conundrum rises like a serpent when several competitors apply for the job. The resolution of choices now becomes a risky factor in the outcome.

In today’s op-ed article, The Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady examines, critically, the friction among two of the leading candidates who would use Executive Privilege to steer our society back to the political Stone Age. We find that the Dowdy Dowd is critical of a few comments made during one of those phony scripted ‘debates’ that would ‘explain the positions’ of the candidates.

We read in today’s article Two Against One[1] we read:

“If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.”[2]

We are not sure what this means. Many think that Bill’s Legacy is just a long brown streak strewn with victimized women, flirts with drugs, Marxism and dirty money. Part of the Clinton Legacy must be eternally connected with the many criminals, dear and close friends, who spent hard time in jail to protect the Clintons. Let us read some more and attempt to sort out some of this:

“Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.” [3][underlines are mine]

This is out of line? Says who? What message is Dowd sending here? Lay off? Give Obama a chance?

“Jonathan Alter reported in Newsweek that Senator Edward Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman and former Clinton aide, have heatedly told Bill “that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Senator Barack Obama.”[4]

Isn’t that like asking an alligator to switch to grass and twigs from the river bank and swear off the juicy red meat?

Dowd reflects:

“It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.”

Isn’t that the basis of the attack by Bill? Hillary cannot do much without a carefully scripted performance and attack dogs snipping at any and all personal attributes of competitors. Can we be persuaded that Bill would be doing this if Hillary were to be leading the pack by 30 points??

“He said, “I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting.”

So do the Republicans. I wonder if he will revert to his hypocritical stance when the opposition goes after Hillary, the choice of the right wing. Will Bill like this?

“How great is this?” he said. “Neither of them has to be a little wind-up doll who’s supposed to behave in a certain way. They’re real people, flesh and blood people. They have differences.”

“And if he [Bill] has anything to say about it, and he will, they’ll be fighting till the last dog dies.”

True to form from the Clintons who mastered Arkansas gutter politics and squeaked into the White House because of Perot and his independent vote share know how to attack their enemies. The need to scatter a little flesh and blood is obvious.

It is difficult for us to determine just where the Times perches on his dangerous issue. Maureen Dowd has been known to criticize the Clintons in the past. Clearly, Senator Obama has not yet opened up on the crime-besotted Clintons and has numerous opportunities to call her on Waco[5], White Water, Castle Grande, Rose Law Firm Billing Records and other political blunders and crimes. Senator Obama is clearly not ready for this political duel or for the White House as we hear from the Clintons. [6]

The Republicans are just waiting to challenge the Democrat winner or leader of the primary system with issues such as illegal aliens, taxes[7], socialized medicine[8], and political support for Islamo Fascists, the War on Terrorism and other matters. It makes no sense for Obama to raise any of these issues, so, he might tee off on Hillary, a shallow political operative with a string of lies [9] and criminal activities as long as the phone book, with other historical facts. She cannot exactly deny much of her testimony under oath.  Many of her warts and crimes are well-documented public knowledge. It will be interesting to see which one he picks first. Her Marxism is probably off the table, but the notion of crooked lawyers was launched by Hillary herself. That would be a good starting place. Ask Hillary about Castle Grande.[10]

The times, they are  a’changin’ as somebody once said. We will all be watching to see when Hillary can be enticed into breaking out of her carefully scripted words and regress to her real temperament as the infamous Colonel Klebb. She may freak out and get some more boos. [11]

Wait and watch.

ryck

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Leftist MicroThink: The Dimmest Bulb at the New York Times Illuminates Us on Conservatism. McCain Might Win.

We are daily treated to the trumpeted unscrolling of the standard leftist theorems that prove that conservatism is dead or dying and that the cure is, of course, liberalism. Today, David Brooks enlightens us on the plight of Republicans and stirs in a few selected historical snippets to flavor the cauldron. The warts and tumors of the conservatives are laid bare in the eyes of the voters. We are pleased.

In today’s analysis entitled The Voters Revolt by David Brooks, we learn much from the New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers:

“…stale history….more stale history….But then a great tightening occurred. Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington. The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.”

” [1]

Of course, the liberals and their silly putty blobs on the NYT staff have no strict definitions as to who might be a liberal or, using Stalin’s word “a progressive.” How long has the ACLU been around? What is Emily’s List and how does it fund candidates who favor abortion? This is a standard redaction essay on selected political histories that shows that some movement is now lost or floundering in confusion and hence impotent. Erik Hoffer educated us on that issue half a century ago. [2] Are the liberals frustrated? Did Erik get their number? They seem to fit his requirements for joining extremist groups.  The only certain purity test for the left is always taxes. No liberal may be endorsed by the Times if they advocate tax cuts.

From the title, mostly used to proffer the conclusion for the article, up front, where the mentally disnimble, those most deserving of the fruits of liberalism, may grasp some basis elements of the screed, the essential facts of the piece are bellowed. This is insurance if the rest of the content might be too murky to be understood by high school dropouts or the information is buried in the prison library. We must rest assured that there is some revolt in progress in the conservative ranks. Chaos will bring victory to the left. Taxes will rise.

“An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about water boarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.”[3]

Global warming is a hoax. [4] Temperature changes do NOT correlate with carbon dioxide levels. Period.[5] Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. What about illegal immigration?

This is a turn of the rusty crank of the old Rebound from the Truth Platitude that carries the intrinsic message that the sages at the Times editorial page are actually correct, or even accurate, using any political vector. They form public opinion. They can rewrite history and own the future. They can rake their own archives to show how evil the conservatives have been and how they will lose when the voters are properly educated in leftist terms. The Times endorsed Humphrey; Stevenson, Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, Gore and others who ‘had the right (a pun) message.’ Can we wonder why they lost? This essay sounds like complex and marvelously commingled parodies of Father Knows Best and the Lord of the Flies. The political conclusions here are astonishing. Time times picked the correct candidate every year since 1900 and are never wrong.

“Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders. Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you’d get from conservative officialdom.”[6] [underlines are mine for emphasis]

This is a strange comment given the confusion and mud-slinging observed last night as Hillary and Obama started their dogfight in public. Can we say that the liberal voters ‘have not followed their leftist leaders?’ Note that Edwards carries as many left-liberal slogans in his caravan as the other two. Is there as much difficulty choosing a liberal as there is choosing a conservative?  As the race-based preference results for the candidates show: many blacks and whites are endorsing Obama and ignoring the white male and the female. Liberal officialdom, apparently set in marble somewhere in the bowels of the Old Gray Lady, has not demonstrated that Hillary is the best candidate to lead the Three Tax Mongers to victory in November. If the Times had any real influence, Hillary would be running unopposed.

Only the conservatives are having difficulty picking a candidate.

We are further stimulated with:

“The fact is, this has been a bad year for the conservative establishment. Fred Thompson was supposed to embody the party line, but he has fizzled (despite being a good campaigner the past month). Rudy Giuliani proposes deep tax cuts that do not seem to excite. Mitt Romney ran as the movement candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and grossly underperformed. Now he’s running as a nonideological business pragmatist for the exurban office parks, and his campaign has possibilities.”[7]

Disarray!! The Times wins! No discussion of tax cuts, common to all? Where is Mike Huckabee in this list? Did he drop out? NO:

“And still the corset tightened. Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives. “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party,” Rush Limbaugh said recently on his radio show. “It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.”[8]

Conservatism is based on ideals—not endorsements. It is based in capitalism and individualism. Rush does not pick the candidates. McCain has several problems, which may be solved today or in Florida. He supported illegal immigration, amnesty and was a member of the Gang of 14.

“The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse.” [9]

This might equally read: The lesson is not that the liberal establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Democratic Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse.

This is a shock. We must assume Rockefeller, Reagan, Goldwater, Nixon, Taft, Hoover, Bush1, 2 and Eisenhower all played the same tunes in the same string band and in the same high key. There is diversity now?? We are shocked.

What we don’t hear from the Times is that the three-way race for the liberal Democrats is in obvious disarray. The foaming cluster is headed by the other half of the Clinton Team, a semi-black liberal Senator who may not be acceptable to the Times based on their editorial staff’s estimate of his electability (due to his race) and some dizzy, sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer who can channel dead children and bring gushes of tears from a jury along with a fat personal award. What we don’t hear is that voters in both parties seem to be forced to vote for, or against, some remnants of the White House of the last 16 years or so, or one of the failed attempts. Edwards could not carry his own state for Kerry.[10] His supporters might throw their support to Obama. The Times must think, or hope, that voters will vote against Bush, who is not running, and, simultaneously vote for Bill Clinton, who is also not running. Such are the torrid actions and squirming around in the Old Gray Lady’s petticoats.

But, the Time’s pick is obvious: “And McCain’s success has raised an astonishing specter: Republicans may actually have a shot at winning this year.”[11] McCain was John Kerry’s pick for VP, a known independent vote grabber. This may be made more complicated if Mayor Bloomberg enters this sordid fray.

Unfortunately for the Times, Senator Obama might get the nomination and finish off the sordid career of the Clinton Team. The Old Red Guard [12] is getting long in the tooth and most of the 60s radicals that embraced Communism are losing most of their neurons and their flesh is sagging in places where heroic plastic surgery cannot prevail. Ted Kennedy is apparently lost in a bowl of ice cream mixed with steroids. More unfortunately, McCain can probably draw more moderates and beat Obama by seven points or more.

Today may be Panic Day at the Times if Obama beats Hillary. Edwards is nothing, but his supporters might throw support to Obama in the looming primaries and finish her off.

So, we have to thank the New York Times for another tautological lesson in leftist politics and historical redaction methods.

The contest will soon become testier if Obama wins today. Would that be a revolt of the voters?

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Debunking the New York Time’s Mythical Debunking of the Reagan Myth, a New Lesson In Propaganda.

In our current lesson on propaganda, from the masters on the subject who haunt the macabre lower reaches of the Old Gray Lady, known as the Walter Duranty Papers [1] [2], we learn that “historical narratives matter.”[3] Gee whiz! Didn’t we know that? But it is the twist and redaction of historical narratives matter that really matter today.

In the lesson today, we want to see if the conclusion to pushed up to the front as far as possible in the propaganda sheet and, yes, we see it boldly stated in the title. So much for grinding away at the basics. Give Krugman an A so far. We could have predicted this. But, now for details, as if they were necessary to make the point in the title.  The conclusion is known by reading the title. The rest of the article is fluff. Today’s toady tussle begins with the following:

“That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.”

This is a convolution of elementary logic, which is proper and very acceptable in misinformation exercises as it injects a bit of mysticism into the facts to stimulate and confuse the reader. Frequently, experienced redactors fall into their own trap as they may even begin to believe their own bunkum. This has probably happened at the Times many times and the psychological mildew that resulted from this questionable practice was thus probably created like the Frankenstein Monster as a junk assemblage art form is constructed from alleyway  and flop house sources. After decades of this practice, the disease persists and probably still sticks to the walls, door knobs and keyboards of the staff cubicles. It appears in most of the opinion pieces. Hence, this becomes the excuse for the infection of new propagandists at the Times, on only kind of person who can print “what is fit to read.” The muddy point being made here is that the New Deal was wonderful and that such actual political failures need to be revisited, redacted and praised. Propaganda can accomplish this. The Times staff is convinced.

Next, comes the expedient political volley against any and all Clinton opponents:

“And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.”[underlining is mine]

The attack begins. But the propaganda elements of this piece are not overblown! Here is truth! Since Senator Obama is talking about good times and using inflammatory words and phrases like a ‘sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship,’ his use of these hated terms may be used to link the Senator with the unseemly aspects of capitalists and other successful persons who have destroyed the Marxist Dream.

Now, the connection: Senator Obama has chosen the wrong political icon and worst possible economic model and now advocates something other than FDR and his socialism. No!!! This is the horrible mistake and it must be exposed. Words like entrepreneurship belong to capitalists and the use of dynamism is fit only for a Rambo movie.

This restatement of the premise, a simple amplification that is necessary for the mentally disnimble, now offers a way to place a wedge between a political candidate that is challenging Hillary and her tax hiking entourage.  Obama is wrong. A strong distinction must be made here using the Guilt of Association Theory. [4] Here, using the old stale propagandistic stratagem of association of some person or concept with evil, we note that the New York Times has connected the good Senator, leading in the polls in South Carolina as this is being written, with the Evils of Capitalism. He likes Reagan’s style. Bad! Dynamism and entrepreneurship are evils of capitalism.

The choice between Hillary and Obama is now clear. [It always was at the Old Gray Lady,  but this is propaganda]: Vote for Hillary.

But, we must have some compassion and sympathize with the author’s dilemma here. Krugman, the chief non-economist of the NYT has to juggle some wobbly baubles in this current Coney Island Freak Show Act as he commingles such touchy  issues as historical narratives, the images of FDR and Ronald Reagan, race and other salient factors and squish them all into some kind of rubber presentation that translates, propagandistically as:

 Vote for Hillary, whose Marxist credentials are impeccable; Vote against Obama.

Here the tax enthusiast needs to show FDR in the best economic and leadership light while trashing Ronald Reagan and simultaneously pushing Senator Obama in the Reagan Camp.  Double Whammy! This is tough task given the histrionics on these tangled matters. Of course, FDR did not dent the unemployment rate much [25% in 1933 and still 15% until Pearl Harbor Day 8 years later] and got 400,000 Americans soldiers killed in war and gave us a stunning  full year’s debt that nobody predicted could ever be paid off. His New Deal was an unsurpassed tax whoring event. Looking beyond these disasters, FDR was a socialist and his notions were hence acceptable. Henry Wallace would have been a much healthier choice for the left in 1948, but most elements of history have no propagandistic utility for the Times so things like this are not mentioned. Wallace was a True Commie Stooge so the NYT has to be careful here. They cannot seem to be too blatant in the praise of Marxism.

Firstly, Ronald Reagan is still hated by the far left as he was an anti-Communist. Those True Communists and their liberal toadies who could not exactly announce their unanimous support for Stalin chose to be labeled as anti-anti-Communists[5], a clever double negative that was politically acceptable at the time and is still now used.  He was attacked by known Communists like the grubby  union stooge Herb Sorrell [6] [7]and others who supported Henry Wallace[8] for President. Ronald Reagan successfully fought these monsters and won. He became President.

President Reagan had the interesting diplomatic technique of starting out any  formal discussion with a Marxist leader with a long list of reasons why their system was failing.[9] This embarrassed Premier Gorbachev and others, sacred heroes of the revolutions praised by the New York Times. Gorby went down and so did his phony Soviet State. Ortega went down and Castro fell silent. The New York Times wept. The truth won. It usually does.

Owing to standard propaganda practices, our krugmaniacal author gives Ronald Reagan some fleeting  kudos, which he swiftly retracts:

“For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.”

It did NOT fail! It crushed the left. That is the basis of the hatred of the left in this article.

Thus we view the fulcrum of this article: The Reagan Economic Failure must be restated.

The left-liberals remain sour, maudlin and unhappy, frequently drug-crazed and filled with hatred because tax cuts and conservative fiscal policies bring prosperity to the US. This argues against the phony essays where they taught about the need for massive government control and high taxes. They were exposed for the failures that they are.  As such they must wallow in eternal hate for Ronald Reagan. They have no other choice.

Slogan Time!

Slogging on with the standard propaganda method: Here, we see a thinly-veiled slogan from the left: “The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” This is a customary turn-of-the-crank on the propaganda machine output and is so monotonous it was slightly altered by the Times. Even liberals need some variety in life.

Of course, this is not true as the standard of living all Americans, and most illegal aliens, has risen drastically and leftist process of moving the economic goal posts allows the poverty levels to be continually elevated for political reasons. Those below the median pay little if any federal taxes now. Reagan created 21,000,000 new jobs and doubled federal revenues, factors that the propagandists here fail to mention. He also destroyed the Soviet Union with his political SDI [10], known as ‘Star Wars’ by the left. This was a political masterstroke that the Russians bought like dumb fish on  a rusty hook  although the US leftists [11] focused on the technical aspects of such a military program stressing that this was not scientifically possible and all that fluff. It was a lethal political stroke. The Times missed the political thrust here and misconstrued the outcome. The Times lost and their allies crashed.

A viewing of the S&P 500[12] shows a sustained growth from the beginning of the Reagan era right up through the Clinton years until the end when the Clinton-Gore Recession finally started to hurt what President Reagan started. During that time, Bill Clinton tried to institute the biggest government program in history: HillaryCare. The nasty potential effects of the 1993 tax hike was smothered by the might and force of the elegant Reagan Revolution and prosperity continued onward due to Newt Gingrich and his Conservatives in Congress who held down spending and taxation by the Clintons. This point allows the left to argue that raising taxes was just fine as it helped the economy. Such trivial lies are frequently the very basis of the kind of propaganda we read daily in the Times. The Bush Revolution was also created by the tax cuts, a method of spurring growth that the Marxists and their cozy fiends at the New York Times are loath to talk about. The Times must also criticize this phenomenal demonstration of growth and prosperity derived from tax cuts.

On a technical note here, the Times cannot condemn Obama for recommending numerous tax hikes although they did urge him to be more vocal about publicly advocating them. [13] He and Hillary are not far apart on this issue, so no wedge is possible.

Frustration and wild lies now grasp the propagandist here with this curious non-historical disgorgement:

“I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

Ah, take a second look at the S&P 500, the effects took only about 14 months not 14 years. Same for the Bush tax cuts and, reaching back to JFK, the Johnson-Kennedy Tax Cuts. The tax cut as a mechanism of growth and prosperity cannot be questioned by reasonable persons. Only politicians and propagandists need to distort this economic fundamental.  We see here that they do make the feeble attempt.

This is frantic and given the upside triangular written structure of articles in the Time, the buzz words and conclusions were given starting with the title so the rest of the article today is meaningless, trivial, repetitive fluff, or needed filler to appease the editors for such writings. The Times is losing money of course. They need bulk not accuracy.

And more:

“And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.”

More guilt by association. More economic fantasies by the Tax Hike Zombie. Bushonomics is not over!

TAX  TAX  TAX  TAX  TAX  TAX  Can we call this tautological,  totemical string an example of the variety and objective  broadness of Krugonomics? [14]I think so.

Tax is good. Tax more. Taxes create wealth. Taxes create prosperity.

Fact: The Bush Tax Cuts overcame the Clinton-Gore Recession.

Fact: The Reagan Tax Cuts overcame the Carter Recession.

And the final attack on Obama:

“Now progressives[15] have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.”

So, Obama is either wrong or cannot comprehend the greatness of the Reagan Era. Either way, the Times wants Hillary to win.

Article Conclusion: The obvious Marxist Choice is Hillary Clinton!! What else would the Times offer? Have they ever endorsed anyone who did not have impeccable Marxist credentials[16]?

Give Krugman an A+ for this fine work. His is a valiant work of propaganda.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com