Krugman Polishes the Statue of FDR and Gloats over his Successes. We need to Spend 50% More than you Think!

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  has an all-embracing and tortuous history of apologizing for Communism, propping up losers like Al Gore[2] or the Princeling of Wails[3], celebrating AIDS along with the perverted practices that spread this horror, practicing the wanton tax whoring for higher taxes for any implausible reasons, praising African and South American dictators and despots in their opinion columns and scrounging for original new ways to reinvent Marxism as a new-fangled and magical solution to achieve a great society. The Times has relentlessly praised any leftist parasite or pervert who will openly parade their dishonor in our now degenerated society.  Today, the Times hauls out their Rooseveltian Memorabilia to reeducate us on the glory of the Democratic Party when they partied during the Great Depression.

Our newest, but least capable igNoble Leechette[4][5], will now bless us with his special insights and demonstrate his arcane ability to dive into the particulars of command government policies and will now polish and decorate the statues and legends of Franklin Del Ano. [6] He has a new deal for us to pay for.

We begin the celebration with questions:

“Suddenly, everything old is New Deal again. Reagan is out; F.D.R. is in. Still, how much guidance does the Roosevelt era really offer for today’s world?”[7]— Franklin Delano Obama? B y Paul Krugman

Our krugmaniacal one now drinks the Kool-Aid and shares his flashbacks of big government glory with funny stories about success and security.

“About the New Deal’s long-run achievements: the institutions F.D.R. built have proved both durable and essential. Indeed, those institutions remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. Imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure older Americans would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security.”-- B y Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

Or course, this Good Deal from the Sour Deal of Del Ano  has bloated over time, grown into a virulent cancer  and is rotting and now burdens us with somewhere between 43 and 60 trillion dollars in shortfall.[8] This is indeed a success for liberals and big government socialists. They can, however, dwarf this incredible hulk with socialized medicine and they will try.

Think of all the money we can print! We can all be billionaires!

But, wait; there is a patch of slime in the message that foams up from The Old Gray Lady:

“But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself.”

The big caveat springs forth:

“Now, there’s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it’s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.”

That is the heavy propaganda thrust. The rest just justifies more tax whoring.

Here is a synopsis of what FDR did: These are the facts:

In just 8 hours congress came up with the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933

That was fast!

This new law invested the president with the power to regulate banking transactions and foreign exchange and to reopen solvent banks.

Big  mistake. Now, look at Paulson and Bernanke. What are they doing?

Roosevelt gave his assurances that it was now safer to keep money in a reopened bank than "under a mattress."

Like during the runs at IndyMac and Wachovia? What good will a ‘safe bank’ be if they have bins of your worthless money  kept openly on the sidewalks  with no threat of theft?

This, after he took our money away.

The Glass-Steagall Banking Reform Act provided for the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpoation (FDIC)

The FDIC insured individual deposits up to $5,000

Roosevelt next ordered all private holdings of gold to be surrendered to the Treasury in exchange for paper currency and then took the nation off the gold standard.

Theft. The government stole wealth in exchange for inflated paper?

The goal was to create inflation, which he believed would relieve debtors' burdens and stimulate new production.

In February 1934, FDR returned the nation to a limited gold standard for purposes of international trade.

And then a dent in the amour of our champion appears and needs to be excused:

“That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the ’30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.”-- Paul Krugman

Did we try astrology or snake oil or surrendering to our enemies? We didn’t signal Mars for help!

Oh, it seems the phony Keynesian economics theories must be defended even thought his measures did nothing to affect the Great Depression. That is nice. We now have some revisionist who thinks no significant fiscal stimuli were used by either Hoover or Del Ano. This implies we need to tax and spend some more!

Here is an attack on that fool Keynes:

Milton Friedman severely criticized Keynes on his foolish notion that inflation was not related to the quantitative measure of the money supply.  This is an insane notion, but it offers governments the gift of certified meddling with some ’theoretical’ backing as an excuse. The proper way to address inflation is to focus on monetary policy [Monetarism] and control the money supply. The reason that leftist ‘economists’ and other soothsayers like Krugman despise Monetarism is because the levers on this part of the economy need not be worked by tax hungry politicos and socialist tax whores to be effective.

Now, we need to study this from Hayek who wrote The Road To Serfdom. [9]

“ Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories, no matter their presumptively utilitarian intentions, require centralized planning, which Hayek argued leads to totalitarian abuses. Keynes seems to have noted this concern, since, in the foreword to the German version of the 'The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money', he declared that "the theory of aggregated production, which is the point of ['The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money'], nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."^”[10]

Hats off to the Commies! Keynes is their champion! How often do we hear the Crypto-Kommies praise Keynes and beg for bigger government?? How many leftist and near totalitarian economies are in the tank now or headed that way? Can we find even a hint of criticism of the idiot Keynes from our Famous non-economist and IgNoble Leechette from the New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers? [11]  

So, we need to try something that was never tried!  Keynesianism didn’t go far enough. Spend more! Haven’t we already done that with that phony 150 bln dollar stimulus? Did that work? No? It had not visible effect? Gee, is Keynes wrong again?

Some more revisionism:

“… The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. … Didn’t all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus?”-- Paul Krugman

“Well, it wasn’t as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren’t felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level.”-- Paul Krugman

Isn’t it interesting to hear that tax increases, the only thing the leftists can cling to as they tip toe around Marxism, were not good for the Great Depression? I thought that Obama was going to ‘spread the wealth around’ with higher taxes? Oh, no, he wants to give a tax cut to ‘95%’ of Americans. But, he wants to increase tax on businesses and double the taxes on investment, the ones that provide the jobs and now he threatens to make the US the most inhospitable place to do business outside of Cuba. Where do the jobs come from? Public works projects? We must suppose that some tax cuts are not cuts and that some     wild spending is prudent. That makes sense in the krugmaniacal world.

And more:

“And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.”-- Paul Krugman

Isn’t it interesting how tax increases are viewed as measures we either should or should not use when fighting a Great Depression like the one we are entering? We can have both ways.  We wonder if Krugman can offer us a scenario where both tax hikes and wild spending will solve this economic puzzle for us. I am confident he can. Let us start the printing presses. Better yet, let us start World War III. How in Mexico or Iran or Africa? It apparently doesn’t matter where it happens as the only important factor is the spending.

Our krugmaniacal one now sums up with this stirring thought:

“The economic lesson is the importance of doing enough. F.D.R. thought he was being prudent by reining in his spending plans; in reality, he was taking big risks with the economy and with his legacy. My advice to the Obama people is to figure out how much help they think the economy needs, then add 50 percent. It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little.”

Gee, this is great! We hear that tax increases work or don’t work and that various stimuli like world wars might work but we have to guess a bit and then add 50% to our guesses.

Let us all take some of Krugman’s advice: let us  all add about 50% more to our tax deductions  for this year 2008 and then send the Treasury about 50% less than our tax returns show  just to be safe.  That exertion seems to balance out the risks using the kinky economics we read at the New York Times. But, let us also seek out a new place to start World War III.  How about California and Oregon?

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Changes He Can ‘Believe’ In.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we must always be prepared to bear the harangues of exotic and persuasive grand visions about hope and new progressive leftist government that will bring glory and peace in our time. Problems or any sort, we are indoctrinated, must always be solved by government and we are relentlessly instructed in the urgent need to fulfill the grand social designs of the left. They know the best directions to go in all variations.  Such nostrums and conclusions are tautologically shaped and boiled  daily by the New York Times and today, as is their custom, the Chief Babbler David Brooks,[2] conservative ‘token’ who pretends at objective journalism at the Old Gray Lady, instructs us in change and shares some of his beliefs using some mystical dream format. Let us see what we are offered by the new discussion on ‘change’ and decide whether his dreams are merely wet or if they emanate from a crack pipe.

 Brooks babbles about his dreams for an opener:

“I have dreams. I may seem like a boring pundit whose most exotic fantasies involve G.A.O. reports, but deep down, I have dreams. And right now I’m dreaming of the successful presidency this country needs. I’m dreaming of an administration led by Barack Obama, but which stretches beyond the normal Democratic base. It makes time for moderate voters, suburban voters, rural voters and even people who voted for the other guy.”[3]— Change I Can Believe In by David Brooks November 7, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

I have sat, for hours, on hard benches in hot soul-saving Christian tent revival meetings and endured fewer promises than this. The most dedicated LSD acid heads in San Francisco in the 60s [like those who haunted the Coffee and Confusion on Columbus] fell somewhat short of concocting fluffy fairy tales like this one. Not even Timmy Leary could stuff enough LSD into his gullet to even approximate this implausible specimen of an unidentified flashback. The usual description of our glorious entrance into the Pearly Gates reads more like a comic book story when contrasted and compared to this frantic flight into lunacy by Brooks. Similarly, though, those who worked the salvation levers and passed the money buckets in the holy tents are actually closely related in methods and means to the tax mongers that now pollute the now predominant Democratic Party. They both want your money in return for promises.  They will pass the hat hourly or even more often. We now witness the vision of some sweeping euphoria in the new Obama Revolution with mantras and ritual that resemble the handling of snakes and speaking in tongues of the religious devotees.  We can correlate strong parallels in this new political hysteria by comparing the promises and expectations to the traditional vision of something like Heaven.

 Brooks, now immersed in the new visions and babbling in the new syntax of obozolistic[4] glossolalia[5], offers us his vision of change, but first he must approach the outer limits of reason and square himself with political reality and confess that few ‘believe’ in government in the egalitarian sense that our Babbler does:

“Only 17 percent of Americans trust the government to do the right thing most or all of the time, according to an October New York Times/CBS News poll. So the members of my dream Obama administration understand that they cannot impose an ideological program the country does not accept. New presidents in 1932 and 1964 could presuppose a basic level of trust in government. But today, as Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution observes, the new president is going to have to build that trust deliberately and step by step.”

It is excessively sad that Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot were spared this disappointing study that tends to truncate dictatorial powers. We have apparently slogged through history in blissful ignorance of this fundamental truth.  Here, we seem to be introduced to the notion that trust and dreams are somehow intertwined like the strands of DNA and that trust alone will fulfill the lofty dreams of Obama.

This is unbelievable, but it is in print in the NYT, who used to print everything that was fit to read. They dropped that sloppy banner.

“Walking into the Obama White House of my dreams will be like walking into the Gates Foundation.”

Not the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation or the Les Folies- Bergère at the Moulin Rouge?

“The Obama administration of my dreams will insist that Congressional Democrats reinstate bipartisan conference committees. “

Pelosi [6]doesn’t bother to include Republicans in their legislation sessions.

“They’ll do things conservatives disagree with, but they’ll also show that they’re not toadies of the liberal interest groups”

Left-Liberals are not simple toadies?

“Most of all, they’ll take significant action on the problems facing the country without causing a mass freak-out among voters to the right of Nancy Pelosi.”

“Then they’ll take up two ideas that already have bipartisan support: middle-class tax relief and an energy package.”

Bipartisan support? High taxes and high gas prices? Now, we get down to the money on the drum:

“By this time, the budget deficit could be zooming past $1.5 trillion a year. The U.S. will be borrowing oceans of money from abroad. My dream administration will show that it understands that the remedy for a culture of debt is not more long-term debt. It will side with those who worry that long-term deficits could lead to ruinous interest-rate hikes.

My dream administration will announce a Budget Rebalancing Initiative. Somebody like Representative Jim Cooper would go through the budget and take out the programs and tax expenditures that don’t work. “If we have no spending cuts, then we’re saying government is perfect. Nobody believes that,” Cooper says.”

There is more mysticism and snake oil in this delusion that we can believe. Those who live abroad have no money left except for the Chinese. We learned a lesson in mercantilism from the PRC.

Let us dissect this fantasy:

[1] The world economy is busted[7] and we are in the early stages of a steep recession or the front end of a severe depression. [8]

[2] The tax-whoring of the vengeful[9] and morally bankrupt social mandates of the left are just beginning. Socialized medicine will be ‘free’ for 60% of the population. Wealth will be ‘spread around.’ Taxes will soar.

[3] Crime will now soar as it did in NYC when Ding Dong Dinkins was elected mayor. Obama will probably pardon Mumia Abu-Jamal. Illegal aliens will be immune to the Rule of Law.

[4] Education will be made to appear as looking ‘effective’ by outlawing standardized tests and passing all students for just sitting around and smoking pot. We will dumb down the polis.

[5] Racial quotas for jobs will reappear as part of the ‘redistribution of wealth.’ We will see Hispanic Civil Rights movements gain power and special taxes enacted to compensate them and Mexico for our imperialism. Reparations will be paid to decedents of slaves and any other victims of American Imperialism.

[6] States like California, New York and New Jersey will be given endless supplies of  money and will not be held responsible for any restraints on spending. These places will be government financed social cesspools of the third world order where sloth, sodomy and sedition are celebrated in the streets and wall hangings celebrate degeneracy.

[7] Small businesses will be severely taxed and regulated out of business. The government will nationalize the auto industry. Inheritance taxes will soar to confiscatory levels in strict accordance with the Communist Manifesto and 401(k)s will be ‘merged’ into the bankrupt swamp of Social Security.

Our Babbler may have woken up in a soaking sweat as he closes with:

“Is it all just a dream? I hope not. In any case, please be quiet and let me have my moment.”

My theory on all of this:

We must recognize that the polis has been sold on the notion that we need a redistribution of wealth and that the rich must give up some of their loot so we can all benefit. The difficulty with a redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of power. A redistribution of power necessarily means a change in the number and types of people who then become the new decision makers and we risk trading those who can manage our businesses and the workings of our society for those who have different views.  Capitalism, the driving force behind our American society works well only in narrowly defined ways and is continually honed and sharpened by sound business logic, success orientation and rewards for success.  The most talented gravitate to the top of the capitalist pyramid. Failure in capitalism is punished by terminating employees and closing failed corporations. Other forms of society have no mechanism for addressing failure. Grotesque social programs that work in the reverse sense of what they were intended to be seem to become static but continue to devour taxes and other resources and cannot be easily abated. Failure in leftist government is not treated as such and those who make massive mistakes are frequently promoted to positions of higher power. Other non-capitalist forms of government and command-economy  businesses work in less efficient ways and we have yet to see  any comparable success in the leftist governments when matched up against capitalism and we see and nothing but failure and terror in the Marxist versions. My conclusion here is that if traditional capitalism and markets are controlled by those who are inept (or vindictive) in business acumen then our economy will crash. This will lead to depression and revolts and perhaps a revolution. In the final analysis, we have to concede the lesson of history that capitalism is an intrinsic attribute of humans although only given to a few and capitalism will reemerge from any social chaos.

The 7 points above are not parts of my dream--they are my nightmare. We are all going to have to experience most of these moments until the voters find out what race-based anti-capitalism and this new socialism are all about. The slavering liberals now haunting new heights of power will destroy any trust we might have in obozomania[10] with stark evidence of failure.  The Second Civil War may start soon.

Our Babbler may never see his dreams fulfilled but we may experience some of our nightmares.

rycK

 Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Sanctions O’Bozo’s Several Years of Impending Deficit Red Ink.  This is Textbook Economics we are Advised.

 The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  has an all-embracing and tortuous history of apologizing for Communism, propping up losers, celebrating AIDS along with the perverted practices that spread this horror, practicing the wanton tax whoring of higher taxes for any implausible reasons, praising African and South American dictators and despots in their opinion columns and scrounging for original new ways to reinvent Marxism as a new-fangled and magical solution to achieve a great society. The Times has relentlessly praised any leftist parasite or pervert who will openly parade their dishonor in our now degenerated society.  Today, the Times goobers up some rump swab specimens and paints an economic vision of the Obama Future that seems strangely reminiscent  of a Jackson Pollack mural during one of his lost weekends. This new vision will cast the brilliance the O’Bozo Agenda upon the curtain of our future for all to witness and celebrate.   

Our newest, but least capable igNoble Lariat[2], blessed with insights and the arcane ability to dive into the particulars of command government policies will now ‘’splain’ to us what Obama offers:

“This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.”[3]-- The Obama Agenda by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: November 7, 2008

True enuf:

“What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?”-- Paul Krugman November 7, 2008

Good question!

“Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.”--Paul Krugman November 7, 2008

Didn’t O’bozo favor a balanced budget amendment?

“Only a Balanced Budget Amendment can protect us against future irresponsible wars and future irresponsible tax cuts. Had a Balanced Budget Amendment been in place when Bush took office, he never would have been able to enact his disastrous tax plan, nor could he have gotten us into the Iraq war: the money simply would not have been available”.[4]—ohboyobama website

“…[criticizing Bush tax cuts….  when instead they [Republicans ] can bypass all of that and leave it to future generations to deal with the consequences? Barack says "ENOUGH,"[5] ohboyobama website

Obama said ENUF to debt to be paid by future generations? Really?

“But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.”-- Paul Krugman November 7, 2008

Krugman seems to be at odds with O’Bozo here!  O’Bozo favors high taxes.

“When governments seek to maintain the high levels of taxation they reached in good times in these days of seriously impaired income, the impending specter of higher taxes constitutes one of the chief deterrents of business recovery.[6]”-- St. Louis Chamber of Commerce 1931.

Krugman probably still believes in John Maynard Keynes as he advocated public works programs and deficits as a way to get the British economy out of the Depression.  This is described in his book The General Theory.[7] This failed during the Great Depression as the people saved the money or paid off debts, exactly the thing that happened with our first of many 150 bln dollar bailouts.[8] The book was published in 1936 after he had sufficient time to see that his notions had failed Hoover and FDR.  Keynes was a sensation in the camps of Stalin, FDR, Hitler and Stalin—he was the only   one all four celebrated as his phony economics gave them the license to spend and spend and spend.

“Keynes himself placed equal emphasis on redistributive taxation and a monetary policy of ‘cheap money’ as well as fiscal policy, and he did not believe governments should run deficits for current consumption, as opposed to public investment. He was by no means a socialist in the usual sense and did not advocate big government for its own sake.”[9]—Wikipedia on the Keynes book: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money 1936 [3-4 years after the low point of the depression.]

On Nov 7 2:59 PM EST Obozo just axed us to ’put aside politics and partisanship’ to help solve this problem and calls for a new stimulus package.

We wonder about a few things here in light of the krugmaniacal rants and the wild changes in fiscal policy by O’Bozo:

Are we going to mix and match Keynes, Obozo and Paulson economics with the possible outcome that we might print too much money and jump headlong into hyperinflation? Is it true that inflation rates of 20-50% will moderate our national debt?  We might all be billionaires! We can blame just about everything on Bush2. It seems that Paul Krugman is willing to accept any form of big government or socialism with huge debts or not if we can only avoid any hint of a tax cut. Krugman is only defiant on one issue in economics and that is the notion of Tax Zombies. [10] Anything else is permitted if he hears his Master’s Voice [O’Bozo] calling from the clouds. I wonder if Krugman was able to obliterate any mention of the economic benefits of tax cuts in his so-called text books during the JFK, Reagan and Bush Eras. Can he ever think of a tax cut as anything other than a ‘cost?’ Does anybody remember the excessive taxes of the Carter Era? Clinton would have hiked taxes but Newt Gingrich halted this nostrum. 

Is Nancy Pelosi listening to this speech and what does this directive to ’put aside politics and partisanship’ mean to her?

Krugman basks in the warm glow of his Master’s Image shining down from Mount Olympus and will pull any switcheroo or  roundabout if the command signal reaches his cranium.

 Obozo and Krugman advocate raising taxes as does the California Cluster, those in Michigan and now Bloomeyburger takes back tax breaks and fires 1000 cops and puts in 200 Meter Monkeys to grub $60,000,000 in parking fines for New York City.

Let us tax our way to prosperity!! A trillion here and a trillion here!

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Collapse of California and other Third World Marxist Economies. They want our Taxes.

The Marxist Utopia of California has, again, demonstrated that they cannot survive their progressive drug addiction celebrations, the political worship of illegal aliens, political correctness, sloth, sodomy and sedition and, most importantly, the Green Weenie Mentality of Environmentalism.  O’Bozo believes in the green revolution and tax whoring behemoths like Global Warming[1] and Carbon Caps[2] that will our destroy society like they are  doing now in England.[3] They are wanton tax whores and the situation is much greater than hopeless.[4] [5] [6] The Golden State is now splattered with social fecal matter and littered with crack vials and a few condoms and is now a potential financial burden to the rest of the planet. They cannot wait to institute a huge Carbon Cap tax on autos and everything else.

The future of this social containment facility is in the hands of their governor [Arnold Schwarzenegger] but more so as embodied in the Reptile of San Francisco the internal force driving Nancy Pelosi whom many think should just ‘go.’ [7] The Reptile is a loathsome, vindictive Marxist parasite also known as Spartacus[8] in honor of the Marxist heroine Rosa Luxemburg[9][10]  who announced in 1919 that some German City [Munich I think] was now a Soviet State and seized control. The Reptile is the former chair of the Marxist Progressive Caucus[11] or Congress' Red Army caucus.[12] No communists there- just concern for the ‘little guy.’

Some History: Nancy in her first 100 days of her reign in 2004 was gong to do things like:

[1] Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

[2] Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[5] "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.[13]

How much of this happened? Nada.

What did she do?

She tried 41 times to defund our troops in Iraq and tried to jail some Bush staffers over the firing of some lazy and parasitic lawyers. She spent her time in vindictive politics and sleaze instead  of pursuing her promised agenda.

And more:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi[14] [15], current leader of the Spartakusbund asked the Justice Department  Thursday to open a grand jury investigation, in the mystical spirit of a reptilian humanoid on crack, into whether President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

The phony People’s Marxist Republic of California wasted most of the summer months of 2008 haggling about spending, cutting spending and increasing taxes and stewing up some phony budget at their Sacramento Cauldron with magical tricks, some anti-war protests and tambourine music to meet state law.

They will not cut away the cancer of socialism and it will devour them and now they beg for federal money. Their shaky budget wobbles like a drunk in search of a lamp post and it will grow worse starting in Jan. 2009, when arguments and such will star anew on the next wreckage of a budget. Besotted with tears and psychedelic drug flashbacks, they wring their hands in despair and await, as I predicted[16], the inevitable handout from the Federal Government. Luckily for the rest of us non Golden Statists, we were spared more debt for a while. California is the perfect example of how not to run a state. It now ranks somewhere between Cuba and Somalia in financial finesse.

The latest lament:

“Schwarzenegger wants $4.5 billion in cuts; one of his proposals would force state employees to take a day off each month without pay and give up two holidays. But he says cuts alone aren't enough to deal with a steep drop in revenue, and he proposes $4.7 billion in tax hikes, including a three-year, 1.5-percentage-point increase in the sales tax.”[17]

The danger here is that California will just persist with its foolish and drug-induced annihilation of its society because it will be given a gratuitous  sweet federal teat to slurp on while they spend even more. Once the socialist life-line is plugged in to Sacramento, they can bawl and cry and showcase all the starving illegal aliens sleeping in the gutters and eating dumpster treats to get Obama to shovel more money into the latrine.

We are to believe that the parasites in California who haunt the Assembly will willingly give up a tax hike? They are still furious about Prop 13, the measure that saved California from the Tax Zombies who would have taxed the middle class our of existence while giving free mortgages and tax breaks to illegal aliens.

Get out of California if you can! The End is in sight.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Black Black Box Theory: Obama and Political Predictions and Outcomes Explained.

We all think we might be equipped with built-in prediction circuitry that might alert us with blinking lights or fog horns as to some predictable event that we are most in need of advance warning. The literature abounds with prediction theories that have various ratings according to their ability to forecast outcomes. Most of these are fluff and may be discarded. The simple-minded citizens frequently sense some correlation between a given public prediction by some person and a corresponding true event and they suddenly raise the predictor to ethereal heights as a prophet or sage.

Examples of this effect are Nostradamus, Jeane Dixon[1] and others. Dixon was credited by many for the prediction of the assassination of JFK in some article in a Parade Magazine piece of May 13, 1956. There is a mass social mental disorder known as the "Jeane Dixon effect", where an accidental correlation of an event with a single prediction out of a wild assortment of crude guesses brings fame and respect.[2] Most of her predictions were simply trash. However, she sold millions of her books despite many false predictions. The public needs to have such mental crutches to guide them in their follies it seems. The proof that she was effective rests in the magnitude of her book sales. We could use a black box that would supply us with the truth if political inputs were transformed by the box and the facts revealed and that is the subject of this essay.

Black box theory is snarled by the contemporary misappropriation of its original scientific and engineering utility by political scientists, writers, idiots and others. As a Senior Research Scientist at a major chemical company for many years[3], I had been trained in this theory in the School of Engineering at UCLA in a course known as linear circuit analysis. Here, an actual locked black box would be presented to students for experimentation in the laboratory that contained certain passive electrical components such as capacitors, resistors and coils and test equipment was available to energize the input terminals of the box and measure the outputs. By a judicious variation of electrical input signals, the different outputs could be analyzed and the contents of the box correctly elucidated using the laws of physics. The student then submitted a diagram of the circuitry to the professor and received his grade based on how close he came to describing the actual contents. This was possible because the electric components must follow strict laws of physics. Politics knows no such bounds, but the quest for such a predictive system is politically expedient. This path leads to folly but what is politics after the essence is stripped off? Maybe we can find something.

The word black used in the common description of a black box bears no racial message although many in the menial mentality crowd might insert some dark racial threat into the description of such a passive thing. We must remain sensitive when handling this word as the use of the term ‘black holes’ was recently shown to be a racist comment.  In the usage in this essay, the first word ‘black’ does relate directly to black politics and specifically to the Obama black political movement in US politics. Hence, we envision a black black box with a specific meaning.

Racism:

One cannot interject skin color into any conversation in America any more without giving the race baiters and professional racists an opening for scoring points against their enemies. The disease of racism is politically convoluted and is now described as an act of cryptomisoxeny [4] whereby a self-declared non racist might employ overt racism in prose, form, speeches or by inuendo and thus ‘identify’ and expose a supposed racist whose comments or methods cannot be disgintuished from those of the accuser. The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[5] is famous for perfecting this process as professionally-trained, dedicated racists squat upon their lofty thrones at the Old Gray Lady and work the levers of the tacky tactics of racism to attack and expose ‘racists’ in their editorials. The Times extends this logic to assert that anybody who disagrees with their editorials and analysis on race matters are actually racists. Merely disagreeing with the Times on any political matter is tantamount to an admission of racism, ignorance, bias, cannibalism, or at least some limited form of degeneracy.

This sounds silly and hypocritical, but this is very good far-left politics, the only practical function of that newspaper. For example, it was possible for Senator Obama to describe his grandmother as a typical white woman[6] and mention her fears about blacks and yet this apparent overt racial labeling is celebrated as ‘transcending’ race by cryptomisoxenist hacks like Chris Matthews, who feels thrilling sensations surging up his legs on hearing that.[7] [Many of us do not fully understand what that means. It sounds like the Jerry Penacoli story about a declawed gerbil and where it wound up. [8]] Obama can make remarks about a typical white woman and tease Matthew’s primitive [or sexual] sensations, but a reciprocal comment about a ‘typical black woman’  by any white would bring howls of protests from Chris and utter condemnation for the speaker of those words as a confirmed racist.  Nevertheless, it is interesting to ask if the existence of a black black box can be deduced from political information and history that would allow facile predictions of the intentions and/or outcomes of the programs and policies of the Obama Administration. We must simply ignore the intrinsic racism of the press and look at the inputs from Obama himself and challenge the box with unfiltered input information. We would then inspect the outputs from transformed comments by Obama and make some determinations.

If this were possible then the first step would be to take items from his speeches and compare the contents of the speech with a ‘box’ outcome and see if they correlate.  It is too early for final outcomes. We need an interim analysis. If so, then, perhaps one part of the box might be elucidated. The caveat here is that we need several inputs chosen from numerous perches that may be presented to the ‘box’ and these must have a high correlation with the outputs. We can choose the word tax as a first test input and see what comes out of the box.

The Tax Essay:

Obama statements about taxes in a debate with Hillary:[9]” I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

President-elect Obama famously claims, “I’ll give a tax break to 95% of workers and their families.” [10] 

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 3, Obama said, “If you work, pay taxes, and make less than $200,000, you’ll get a tax cut.”[11]

This essay goes on and on while the actuaries and accountants show that people making about $80,000 will certainly experience an income tax increase. 95% of the workers yield for us the implausible number of about 125,000 people who would get a tax cut not counting illegal aliens and criminals who ‘work.’ The box seemingly produces nonsense transformations for the word tax.

Joe Biden has clarified this for us:

“"Read my lips," Biden  said, using Bush's famous phrase while referring to a Barack Obama administration. "Nobody, nobody making less than $250,000 is going to see a penny of their taxes go up."[12]—Biden[13] in an incoherent rant at some county fairgrounds near the campus of Ohio University in Athens on Oct 15, 2008.

This is difficult to believe.

Comments  from the WSJ:

“An Obama Administration couldn't possibly pay for a tax cut for 95% of Americans by raising taxes on a mere 5%. Those 5% don't make enough money, or at least they won't after they find ways to shelter more of their income when their tax rates rise.”[14]

One can juggle various tax categories around and find ways to ‘show’ that people who “… make less than $200,000, ..will… get a tax cut.”

It turns out that these tax statements are true only if extracted from the total tax picture and set aside in some narrow political context and that the proffered new Obama spending programs, totaling more than 1 trillion dollars, cannot be funded without massive tax hikes.

The Finding:

The contents of the black black box that we can identify contain this:  something inside the box mandates that the taxes will generally increase althoughsome taxes will be lowered in specific cases. This double speak is typical in politics. That is what the box does. It is a disinformation generator with no specific racial overtones.

Obama favors huge energy taxes[15], an undisputed fact, and a tax that does not appear in the political discussions. If new energy taxes are passed along to consumers by corporations then the customers will pay the higher price. That is an indirect tax. In theory, corporations pay no taxes at all because all taxes are included in the costs of production hence they are included in the price paid by the end user. The notion that the ‘poor’ will not have to pay for the higher intrinsic taxes embedded in commodities like tooth paste and sodas is ludicrous. But, such nostrums are the very essence of political persuasion. The crevasse that separates the leftists from the capitalists forces the advocates of the have-nots to be devious and dishonest. They cannot tell the truth about taxes. They have few options other than begging or threats. The black black box must generate outputs in concert with this disinformation mandate and it does exactly that.

Now, if the box had sent out signals that blacks would be given special tax breaks solely because of their skin color [reparations] with no such identifiable such inputs then the box would have a definite black racial component. The tax polities to date from Obama are color blind at this juncture. This box contains no such circuitry as yet.

The Internal Construction of the Black Black Box.

Obama is a standard and unremarkable leftist who favors, simply, the far leftist notion that government should control of most of our wealth. This is Marxism or socialism or whatever you might want to call it, but here it is. The ‘black’ part of the black black box, if anything, is that blacks are promised something they cannot get for themselves: a piece of the American Dream.

Nowhere in the world do we see cases where affluent blacks have created good or effective governments.  Their governments are typically Marxist dictatorships with tribal hatred and murder as their first priorities. They have suffered for decades around this planet by having been confined to localized degenerated societies and forced into political pogroms such as we can observe in any large city in California or anywhere in Africa.[16] Signal cities like Chicago, Oakland, Philly and Baltimore, inter alia, have extensive neighborhoods that were inadvertently prepared for ‘the poor’ by liberals, who forced complete dependency upon their victims by the government. These social containment facilities functioned to simply secure their eternal votes at taxpayer expense.  We are persuaded that the left employed ‘good intentions’ in the initiation, implementation and oversight of  such programs, but that largely political essay fails as we see disappointment everywhere and  this observation also seems to reflect the dismal historical status of African citizens on their own continent for several thousand years. The leftist attempts to isolate their subjects from the rest of society in inner city ghettos reek of tribalism in the old African sense.

Welfare effects:

Welfare has destroyed any hope that blacks with near average IQs in their cognitive category ever had of getting into the middle classes by their individual merits.  The average black is burdened by mandatory role playing and worse. Only the brightest of blacks can make it out of the ghetto and escape the clutches of the leftist social engineers who have ruined the black culture.  Those who escape and become successful seldom return.  Any black wh0 is successful and cannot soar to the podium where he or she may glubber and praise affirmative action [Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, etc.] are considered ‘inauthentic’ and simple traitors.

Cognitive factors:

The cognitive skill[17] levels for average blacks that are necessary to compete with middle class whites are sadly deficient [IQ=85 or below] and well below the median for average whites [IQ =100]. This affects competition for jobs as intelligent employees make more money. The academic dropout rates in cities for blacks are typically than 50% or even higher in many cases.[18] High school dropouts get and maintain fewer jobs and the ones they can get offer low pay.

Crime:

A survey of the crime statistics city-by-city[19] clearly shows that those inner neighborhoods with high black populations have the highest crime rates in the US. Blacks are in prison in highly disproportionate rates.[20]

Mystical Black Cultures:

The assumption that Africa fell from the dizzying heights of economic, intellectual and social dominance in the last 7000 years cannot be attributed to their producing too many teachers, engineers and scientists. The notion that blacks were pharos in Egypt is based solely upon the facial features of a few statues.[21] Afrocentrism is a political construct.[22]  Apparently, the tragedy of slavery from some 15 decades ago has some remarkable lasting negative effect on the academic outcomes and business success rates for blacks. Only a single piece of ‘evidence’ is necessary to reconstruct the minute details and detailed history of an entire primitive society and synthesize a mystical black culture.

Competition:

Now, we can all argue about the reasons why blacks cannot compete in our society without quotas or affirmative action programs [the answer is always racism] and why they cannot get good scores on IQ tests [the answer is always racism] or why then cannot routinely pass standardized municipal employee tests [the answer is always racism], but the fact remains that the educational ‘gap’[23]  persists despite decades of attempts to correct this and academic success rates for blacks are still very poor.  The average black cannot compete on level terms with the average white or Asian in the open job market place [the answer is always racism]. After 50 years of civil rights, busing and social programs there is no reason to believe that this observation will change in the future. The situation appears to be hopeless [but this explanation must be racist]. Who can we blame for the failures of busing, affirmative action and other social programs not equalizing blacks with whites? The answer is always racism.

Hopelessness:

But, hopelessness is a bright political opportunity and the grand chance to fix such ‘hopeless cases’ that need financial rescue [with tax money of course] and is thus a major political objective and asset. This makes perfect political sense. Here, the concept of the exploitation of the masses is the best way to exploit their political support as the leftists can force the opposition [capitalists] to pay for their own counterproductive programs with business taxes. This is a win-win situation for the political left. Their social programs do not work, they get somebody else to pay for them and the situation grows worse with time and then they insist on more tax money to fund more programs. This is excellence in politics. This is a vote-generating spiral.

The internals of the black box:

There is no strictly ‘black’ racial component in the Obama black box. It is an ordinary black box that generates the usual political disinformation and fluff.  There is only the old musty socialist box of the customary sort that the Fabians and Bolsheviki noisily opened and closed for decades in their attempts to impose Marxism or socialism upon capitalists.  Barack Obama is a pedestrian-level leftist, quite ordinary and uncontroversial in leftist circles, and blacks are merely a sidelight in his promotion of the leftist agenda. They are expendable--that is why he transcends race. They adore him for his skin color, but he cares not about them or their race. He doesn’t have to support them now especially now after they voted for him assuming they would get something special for their votes. They won’t. He supported his obviously racist pastor Jeremiah Wright until he became a political liability and then he did ‘disown’ him and left his church.

There are no special tax breaks or tax credits targeted directly and exclusively to blacks. Obama will tax the general economy into a near depression if he can by mindlessly following the usual far leftist notions of government and there is nothing except rational government or a revolt that will prevent that.  He cannot finance his new social programs with out the wealth of the middle and upper-middle classes. Blacks in those income strata will be taxed equally and punished along with whites and Asians.

The capitalists can easily defend their interests against high taxes and oppressive government and survive or even prosper by shutting down selected businesses along with the timely discharge of employees. Unemployment will soar and the blacks will suffer the most. Large amounts of un-taxable reserve money and time are on the capitalist side.  They can wait out a long recession or depression when the common citizens become outraged and will vote out the leftists. Then, business will return from exile and create jobs. This is a global economy and capital and talent will flee this country if threatened. Blacks will endure the worst possible ending from these actions because of their meager educational levels, defeatist attitudes and non competitive cognitive skills and that is just another positive advance in the leftist cause.  They are anchored in place and have few good options. They are merely rubber voting stamps for the far left.

Conclusion:

This is all typical leftist politics and we see nothing exceptional in the Obama election. There is no bias in the box noted here.  He is the average leftist with the usual socialist leanings. He is nothing special. Let him defeat himself by advocating ineffective social programs. He will fail , but give him  his chance as he earned it.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about the Future Economy and Shortages

 As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we must always be prepared to hear about grand visions and new progressive leftist theories and secret insights on the political activities of our times. Problems or any sort must always be firstly blamed on the right, then on capitalism and then solemnly solved by government with high taxes.  Such comments and conclusions are tautologically squeezed through some narrow political extruder to form piles of sticky ideas with more loose ends than architecture. The New York Times today treats us to a dissertation on new mandated leftist generational social methods and that we will be treated to the economics of shortage by the Chief Babbler David Brooks.[2][3]  He is a conservative ‘token’ who pretends at objective journalism at the Old Gray Lady will guide us down the rosy political path for today’s lesson in socialism. Let us see what we are offered by the new discussion on ‘shortages.’

We can begin by eviscerating the fluff and clap trap from the beginning of this tome and get to the point:

“Ho hum… fluff….hokum.. clichés…..end of an economic and generational era…yaya yoyo … When historians look back at the era that is now closing, … yadda yadda the public sphere has not flourished. … Barack Obama is a child of the 1960s and more frivolity.

Later on we get into something with some substance:

“Raised in prosperity, favored by genetics, these young meritocrats will have to govern in a period when the demands on the nation’s wealth outstrip the supply. They will grapple with the growing burdens of an aging society, rising health care costs and high energy prices. They will have to make up for the trillion-plus dollars the government will spend to avoid a deep recession. They will have to struggle to keep their promises to cut taxes, create an energy revolution, pass an expensive health care plan and all the rest.”[4]-- A Date with Scarcity by David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist Published: November 3, 2008

This is an economic load that no third world country has even attempted. Few  who live in Europe or Asia or South America can convince us that they are controlling health costs [look at Japan] or balance the demand/supply schedules for their citizens so that all or most of the citizens have even the basics. The unemployment rate in Europe has been high for decades and their government leaders in France and Germany stare blankly when 500 cars per night are burned by dissident “citizens.” They are going to have to ration food in Iceland after their recent banking escapades. Banks are failing all over Europe. Chinese and Indian corporations are closing down. The stock markets in those areas are down 50-60%.

A prediction from an expert:

“As Robert J. Samuelson writes in his forthcoming book, “The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath,” “Already, Americans face far more claims on their incomes than can be easily met.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

This snippet is out of place in this article so we wonder about the naiveté of this writer. First we need to deal with deflation[5] and its possible cure and then work with the inflationary period that is the aftermath of deflation. Deflation is the shortage of money supply, shrinking credit and falling prices. That is happening right now.  Housing prices are nearly in a free fall all over the world.[6] Gold has fallen as has corn and other commodities. [7] Gold falls because the dollar is in demand. Gold will soar as soon as inflation takes over from too much money in the system. Our idiot government is now just printing money to try to halt bank failures.

The problem with deflation is that the inflation rate goes negative because of a contraction in the money supply  so if you buy a car and the deflation rate is zero and then soars to -10% you own 10% more on your car in real buying power. At the same time, your salary rises 10% and is a higher cost factor to your employer. Scarcity of money leads to less demand for goods and services and that causes prices to fall as producers scramble to get cash from sales in a truncating market. This is a spiraling downward cycle as sellers compete for cash returns on dwindling inventory.  They manufacture less because they cannot sell things at a profit. The result is unemployment, then lower demand and then the collapse of businesses. At the end of this spiral is depression.  Deflation crushes those with debt.

Depressions are ‘fixed’ by printing money. Inflation[8] comes later when governments have overcorrected for the money supply problem and the costs of goods and services rise many beyond the economic reach of those who survived the recent depression. Inflation can lead to stagflation[9] or hyperinflation.

Given all this, we can now consider what our Babbling Brooks of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[10]--has prepared for us to read. Armed with the facts we can criticize his propaganda piece in appropriate places.

At the end his article we read this: Here is the whacker and should have been the leadoff in this article:

“In the next few years, the nation’s wealth will either stagnate or shrink. The fiscal squeeze will grow severe. There will be fiercer struggles over scarce resources, starker divisions along factional lines. The challenge for the next president will be to cushion the pain of the current recession while at the same time trying to build a solid fiscal foundation so the country can thrive at some point in the future.”

This is a good starting point as we may safely dump the frumpois[11] from the touchy-feely blather in the launch phase of this propaganda piece. This differs from the usual Turn of the Marxist Crank [12]screeds we read from the Times as it socks the reader full in the chops with a society breaker and achievement destroyer: Inflation. It is also half a thought. Only a dolt living in some cave in Sumatra can miss the signs of a bad depression. We now experience the classic indicators of this disaster as outlined by Irving Fisher who “argued that the predominant factor leading to the Great Depression was over indebtedness and deflation.” [13] Does any of this sound familiar? Do we have this now?

Then, at the penultimate paragraph we begin a strange indictment against the new liberals who will navigate these unknown seas.

“We’re probably entering a period, in other words, in which smart young liberals meet a stone-cold scarcity that they do not seem to recognize or have a plan for.”

Now, we see the overload lights blinking on the Babble Meter:

  “In an age of transition, the children are left to grapple with the burdens of their elders.”

So, the new ‘leaders’ have no notions of how they will deal with depression,   unemployment, inflation and worse but they will raise taxes and punish business and cut the military budget. This is a plan?

  And here is how Obama will deal with this problem.

 He will raise taxes on everything, he will spend a trillion dollars in new social programs, he will attempt to redistribute the wealth by tax policy, he will tax small businesses and drive them out of business, he will initiate a carbon tax on all forms of fossil energy that will cost trillions of dollars in useless costs and contribute to the inefficiency of energy production and benefit only government. He will probably give amnesty to 30 million illegal aliens and put them on Social Security and Medicare. He will offer them more mortgages with zero down. He will create a new Hispanic Civil Rights Movement where the nasty Nazi whites will have to fill quotas with our new ‘citizens’ and ‘redress the sins of the past.’

 He will ignore his pledge to not raise taxes for 95% of the middle class. He will make a recession into a full blown depression.  Get ready to go into the survival mode as rioting in the streets is not far away when Obama supports find out there is nothing for them  in his worthless promises.

 Those of you who own small businesses be prepared to lay off employees starting, I suggest, with those who voted for Obama. Get to cash and gold.

 rycK

 Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Europe Puts On a Little Song and Dance over their Economic Woes.  So Come to the Cabaret and celebrate Sharia.

We looked at Europe for culture, wisdom, advice and the making of fine wines for centuries until they managed to kill off 100,000,000 of their own souls in two brutal wars and were forced to allow the victims of this carnage to procreate more losers and encourage them make policy. Those that survived and ate rats and sawdust in the bombed-out shells of smoldering cities now wanted ‘security’ at all costs, and they got just that. Licking Russian boots and spying on your neighbor for the Cheka, Gestapo or MI-5 brought in some little extras to help moderate a dismal existence. Half of all the France Resistance movement was paid stooges for the Germans. The Gulag Mentality still poisons Europe’s society.

After groveling and whining for a century the inhabitants of Europe, England and places close by now face two new horrors and it is not clear which monster will be the first to gobble their brains.

Sharia may Destroy Europe before the Great Depression Starves the Whole Lot.

This is an interesting contest. In their latest bid for a chummy spot in the soggiest part of the latrine, Merry Olde England Votes 648:5 to Ruin Their Economy![1] This is a not-so humorous parody of The Poseidon Adventure where some bean-counting clerk is leading the lubbers aft as the ship sinks by the stern. [2]

The reason for such a vote: “...the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050...”  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Of course, CO₂ has no relation to global temperature.[3] This is politics not science. The privileged in this containment facility for the mentally marginalized, those who are supposed to make  reasonable ‘decisions’ in such a place in time and space as England, are now populated by those universally known as ‘stupid Europeans’.[4]  They have no clue as to a path forward and now waddle mindlessly into an economic swamp. Things are hopeless and there is no leader.

A comment from one of their few uninfected observers in Parliament:

"As we destroy industry we'll be more dependent on shipping and aviation for our imports!"

But, not to be too negative about such matters and to relive a bit of the Battle of Britain party atmosphere, we need to read a bit about the notion  that things will be just a ‘little rough’ in the near future:

“BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Commission forecast Monday that the economy in the 15 countries that use the euro will barely grow next year, expanding just 0.1% as the financial crisis hits hard.”[5]-- European economy to barely grow in '09 EU Commission predicts that the biggest economies in the 27-nation region may stagnate or shrink, with the overall economy growing just 0.1% next year. November 3, 2008: 6:04 AM ET [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Gee, the US GDP went down .3% already. [6] Europe can beat this number?

Isn’t this just like the trendy prattle about syphilis in the movie Cabaret with the conclusion that:

“Life is a cabaret old chum, so come to the Cabaret.”[7]

We can expand the chum theme by wondering if those living in Europe and surrounding islands now believe the hokum and fluff from chum chuckers. The salient point here is that after a few millennia of Christianity they have chucked that for Islam or, at least, the frantic need to incorporate Sharia law into English Common law.[8]

They now realize that socialism has trashed their society and such nonsense as Carbon Caps will cap off their graves. So, they whine:

"The US must take its responsibilities in this situation, must show statesmanship for the sake of their own companies and for the sake of the world," European Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger said.”[9]— World leaders look to US for salvation as economies near abyss.

This prattle must be contrasted with notions like this: Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

“Dr Williams [Archbishop of Canterbury ed] argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.”[10]-- Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Let us peek a bit further into this metamorphosis of Englanders:

“It may be by pure conversion that Britain will become an Islamic state. We may never need to conquer it from the outside.”[11]-- From Magna Carta to Sharia Law – Britain’s Decline [Emphasis in red is in the original in this case]

And more:

“But liberals are those who have remained utterly silent when extremist Muslim clerics have called for the execution of homosexuals or the beating of women.” [Emphasis is mine in this quote]

Can we combine this trend toward poverty, famine and Islam with the concept of fasting?[12]

What would happen to the pubs? Isn’t booze against Sharia? What would be the new ‘rules’ on eating bangers and mash? What are bangers made of? Pigs? What to do about the progressive sexual activities in SoHo?[13]

The Euro-Peons have found two simultaneous vices to compress both their moral and economic futures where the screws can be turned either by home-hatched slobbering morons or their sworn enemies, or both, in something like the Cabaret carnival act.

And, they want the US to bail them out? We are entering a depression![14]

 A sober assessment of our economy:

Conclusion: "This recession is unlike any seen in the last five decades." Typically caused by inflation, inventory cycles or aggressive Fed tightening. "This is a balance sheet recession deeply rooted in asset liquidation and debt repayment, and would seem to have more in common with pre-WW I cycles."[15]—Merrill Lynch’s North American economist David Rosenberg Oct 24, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in this quote]

So, now is the time to raise taxes, ruin our coal plants, print endless piles of paper money and get into the serious business of being losers like our so-called friends and allies in Europe have done. We need to turn our guns and Bibles and get deeper into liberalism.  We need to legalize sloth, sodomy, sedition, drugs and more.

Please ! Tax us into Prosperity. Please! Life is a cabaret old chump.

rycK

 Comments: ryckki@gmail.com