More right wing entertainment from John Stossel

The fact that this man still has a job is amazing. Appears his latest bit of wisdom is to ring in a new great Depression.

John Stossel: Federal deficit is cause for worry
First he gets history wrong in regards to the lessons from the Great Depression:

Of course, neither was able to fix the economy. On the contrary, their policies made a depression the Great Depression, extending it many years and even generating a depression within a depression in 1937.

But Krugman and others suggest that since the New Deal ran moderate deficits and the Depression persisted, then Roosevelt should have run bigger multiyear deficits -- and so should Obama.

This is the wrong lesson to learn from the 1930s. The New Deal didn't fail because its deficits were too small. As Amity Shlaes shows in her book "The Forgotten Man," the New Deal failed because it interfered with the market's natural regenerative processes. By raising taxes, hamstringing producers with arbitrary regulations and creating uncertainly about what the government would do next, business people were unwilling to invest and hire workers.

I'll let krugman set the record straight.

And then Stossel goes on to say that Government spending will increase the problem and that deficits should be the big worry right now:

The 2009 deficit is projected to be $438 billion. Obama's "stimulus" could take it up to a trillion and beyond. That's just the beginning since the Democratic Congress' spending wish list and Medicare's $35 trillion unfunded liability loom.

We should all worry about the deficit.

I'll outsource to an economist for this one, Dean Baker from CEPR:

there is nothing that the economy needs more right now than very large deficits. The collapse of the housing bubble has destroyed more than $5tn in wealth. The fallout from this collapse has led to an even larger decline in stock market wealth. This massive loss in wealth in turn is leading to a plunge in consumption that is driving the economy into the most serious downturn since the Great Depression.

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that the only way to counteract this loss of consumption demand is through large increases in government spending.

If Stossel was really worried about Medicare's liability he'd be talking about health care reform because the health care crisis is going to be hitting the private sector in a major way. If you are worried about the recession turning into a depression government spending is exactly what you want. If you are worried about long term deficits health care reform is what you want.

Stossel is either lying or uneducated. I'm not a mind reader so I can't tell you which.

Republican's and their leaders...

Republicans consistently hold positions different from their base. The "no bailout for CEO's" is something I commonly hear from conservatives on the ground. Yet the broader point is this:

QUITE A LOOPHOLE....

When lawmakers considered the $700 billion bailout package a few months ago, they argued with the Bush White House over restrictions on executive compensation. Democrats insisted that firms accepting bailout funds could not, in turn, lavish their top executives with multi-million dollar salaries and/or "golden parachute" severance pay. The president wanted no such restrictions.

At first glance, it was a fight Democrats appeared to win, and strict limits were included in the final legislation. Indeed, there was even an IRS mechanism that mandated a close review of executive compensation, and tax penalties for companies that failed to comply.

Those evil Democrats

new prisoner release

Crowds greet freed Palestinians

Jubilant crowds in the West Bank have welcomed home busloads of Palestinians set free from Israeli jails.

Israel said the release of more than 220 Palestinians was a goodwill gesture towards Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Most of those released are linked to Mr Abbas's Fatah faction, which is dominant in the West Bank.

There was a similar release of 200 Palestinians in August, but about 10,000 still remain in Israeli jails.

Of these more than 550 are in administrative detention - held without charge or trial.

More than 40 members of the Palestinian parliament, most representing the militant movement Hamas, are among the prisoners.

Darfur

Hundreds dead in Darfur battles

Up to 250 people were killed in clashes in Sudan's Darfur region in the last week, says the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission (Unamid).

Unamid says 150 people died as hundreds of members of the Fallata and Salamat ethnic groups attacked the Habaniya in South Darfur.

About 100 more died in clashes between two groups from the Gimir group.

Seriously though, whats the difference?

Is What Blago Did Illegal?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. Obviously, if the tapes are accurate, what Blagojevich was odious and unethical and dishonorable. But was it illegal?

Here's why I ask: the Tribune's reporting that not only was Jesse Jackson Jr. candidate five, but that Blago had a meeting with a business man named Raghuveer Nayak who's a fundraiser for both men, and it was during that conversation that Nayak offered to raise as much as $1.5 million for Blago's campaign fund if he gave Jackson the seat.

OK, it's possible that Jackson had no idea these folks (including, it appears, his brother) were scheming on his behalf. But here's my question: My understanding of the law is that there's a distinction between personal pecuniary interests/compensation and campaign fundraising. In other words: it would be manifestly illegal, obviously, if Blago was "selling" the seat in the sense of trading it fro cash for himself. But is trading the seat for fundraising help really illegal? and if so, doesn't that mean that a huge percentage of political transactions are illegal, including all those conversations during the primary about Obama inducing HRC to drop out in exchange for fundraising help to retire her debt?

I'm not defending this at all. Let me make that clear. I'm saying that politicians trade things for fundraising help all the time, it's half of what they do. So where's the line where that becomes illegal?

Freedom

Freedom: an Experimental Analysis

Consider the following case:

Tanya lives in a small, newly created country in Eastern Europe. Perhaps the most important issue in the region is the treatment of a disenfranchised minority that lives throughout the country. Tanya truly dislikes the minority and wants to further damage them if she can. While public opinion concerning the minority varies greatly, the government has taken the side of the minority. Consequently, a ban has been placed on any action or public speech that is intended to hurt the disenfranchised minority. In other words, the government has made laws against hurting the minority, but Tanya wishes she could hurt them.

Now ask yourself: 'To what extent do these laws diminish Tanya's freedom?'

Once you have decided on the answer to this question, consider a very similar case with one important difference: Tanya wants to help the disenfranchised minority.

Tanya lives in a small, newly created country in Eastern Europe. Perhaps the most important issue in the region is the treatment of a disenfranchised minority that lives throughout the country. Tanya truly cares about the minority and really wants to help them if she can. While public opinion concerning the minority varies greatly, the government has sided against the minority. Consequently, a ban has been placed on any action or public speech that is intended to help the disenfranchised minority. In other words, the government has made laws against helping the minority, but Tanya wishes she could help them.

Now ask yourself the same question again: 'To what extent do these laws diminish Tanya's freedom?'

During an experiment I conducted in which participants were presented with these two cases, I discovered an very interesting result. Participants thought that Tanya's freedom was much more diminished in the second case than in the first. In other words, subjects thought that people's freedom was much more diminished when they were prevented from doing something morally good than when they were prevented from doing something morally bad. After noticing this interesting result, I conducted two other studies which further confirmed the interesting effect found in the first survey.

Anythoughts... in regard to the Positive and Negative Liberty debate?


"A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him." --George Orwell

refusing heaven

Go listen to an amazing poet:

Jack Gilbert: Notes from a Poet's Well-Observed Life

Since the 2002 education funding cuts by Republican Govenor Sunny Perdue Henry County has lost 28 million dollars.

Go read more on the downturn in SPLOST revenues.

the failed bailout

The Republicans blame the union. The union notes their fall guy status:

“We wondered if we were just being set up,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “We did not know who Senator Corker was representing on the Republican side, and if he could deliver votes.”

He said Mr. Corker admitted to the union’s representatives that discussions over wages were “largely about politics in the G.O.P. caucus.”

John Judis on the failed bailout:Craven Senators Kill the Auto Deal

Here’s what bothers me. Japanese companies, which for years have benefited from one-way deal by which they could sell cars in the U.S. while U.S. companies were stymied in selling cars and trucks in Japan, set up non-union plants in low-wage, low-education, right-to-work states where they can pay less wages and benefits to their workers. Of course, in Japan, these same companies recognize and work with unions, but not here, where they have a chance to undercut American firms that work with unions. Corker and these other great patriots want to allow these Japanese companies to dictate the wages and benefits that American companies pay their workers. It’s despicable. Imagine, for a moment, American companies being allow to operate in this manner in Japan or South Korea. It would not happen.

Of course, this is not just about automobile companies. If you look at the history of the Great Depression, what tipped that event from a global recession to depression was precisely a series of dumb, craven--or in Keynes’ word, “feather-brained”--moves by politicians blinded by ideology or by narrow self-interest. An interest rate hike here, a balanced budget there, a spending reduction or two, and we went from ten to twenty percent unemployment. Don’t imagine for a moment that the failure to bailout the auto companies isn’t one of those feather-brained moves.

Put it this way. What we have learned from the economics of the Great Depression is that in order to end the spiral of unemployment, government has to throw money at companies and consumers. It should be trying to raise wages, not lower them. The Wall Street bailout was a fiasco, but it was probably better than nothing. And the auto bailout was considerably better thought-out. Now there is a good prospect that two of the Big Three will fail, jeopardizing, perhaps, as many as a million jobs. That’s exactly the kind of thing that Americans should not be doing. But don’t tell that to those great patriots Corker, DeMint, or Shelby. They know better.

And a source for TPM on what happened:

I don't think it'll be hard to explain why Senate Republicans had the final say: that's what the Constitution and Senate rules require. How else would we have passed anything?
I do think it'll be hard for Senate Republicans to explain themselves.

They were invited, repeatedly, to participate in more than a week of negotiations with a Republican White House. They declined.

They were asked to provide an alternative bill. They refused.

Finally, one of their members - Senator Corker of Tennessee - participated in a day-long negotiation with Senate Democrats, the UAW, and bondholders. Everyone made major concessions. Democrats gave up efficiency and emissions standards. UAW accepted major benefit cuts and agreed to reduce workers' wages. Bondholders signed off on a serious haircut. But when Senator Corker took the deal back to the Republican Conference, they argued for two hours and ultimately rejected it.

Why? Because they wanted the federal government to forcibly reduce the wages of American workers within the next 12 months.

What if we had just mandated mileage standards on these cars years ago? Might they not have sold more cars? We'll never know. Republicans don't want us to think about it.

As is always true throughout history, the Government is looking to protect the economy from itself by using the financial bailout money:

“Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms,” said Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman, in a carefully nuanced statement released just minutes before the New York financial markets opened. “However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary — including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.”

right wing entertainment

Glen Beck getting it right time and time again...

Beck: ‘I Was The Most Well-Researched Show’ On CNN, ‘They Forced Me To Document It’

In fact, it seems that no matter what politically-relevant topic Beck chose to discuss, we could count on Beck to get it wrong:

– On Taxes: Falsely claimed the U.S. is the “number two” highest taxed country in the world.

– On Energy: Falsely claimed “drilling in ANWR alone would yield 100 million barrels a day.”

– On Global Warming: Falsely claimed that “the globe was the hottest” and “America’s temperature peaked” in 1934.

– On Sub-prime Crisis: Falsely claimed that the sub-prime lenders were “blackmailed” into lending to the poor and minorities by community organizers.

– On The Iraq War: Falsely claimed that the U.S. “went into Iraq…to prevent World War III.”

– On the Middle East: Falsely claimed that Palestine is “being run now by Hezbollah,” President Abbas is an extremist.

– On Obama: Falsely claimed that Fidel Castro endorsed Obama’s candidacy.

Given Beck’s principled disregard for the facts, it’s no wonder that Sean Hannity recently welcomed beck to Fox News Channel saying, “You’re a perfect fit, a great addition to family“

No wonder people think Sarah Palin is talking any sense... this fits right in line with the sounds good, feels good policy of conservatives.