j_b

sinking $1 trillion a year in the military is no less big government, so let's quit with the rightwing ideological framing.

The center is where it has always been. Free marketeering however has always been pretty far to the right.

After 30 years of conservative "big government", soaring deficits, and unprecedented corporate welfare, he wrote that Obama's budget is a "big government document" yet you think he isn't an apologist for the rightwing?

Class warfare? note that this figure understates the problem since it is based on official inflation figures, which aren't reliable (CPI basket is fixed to minimize inflation figures), and the numbers are prior taxation which has increased as fraction of income for lower income earners notably via sales taxes, and other fees. Also, many more families have 2 wage earners than even 30 years ago, which generates additional expenses (child care, prepared food, etc ..) and a lower quality of life. So real income has decreased even more for the bottom half and increased less than shown for the upper quintiles. Finally, the upper quintile number is greatly skewed by the increased income of the upper 0.1% which has seen orders of magnitude increase in income over that period.

Typical rightwing fear-mongering. "Despite claims to the contrary, the President’s proposals concerning the top two income tax rates, limitations on itemized deductions and personal exemptions, and the carried interest tax break would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners. In fact, most small businesses would benefit substantially — from proposals to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income tax payers in the form of the Making Work Pay tax credit and to reform the health care system." http://www.cbpp.org/2-28-09tax.htm How about the taxes on energy that will hit everyone? Go back and read the WSJ article I posted on page 1. Please, as if the free market extremists who regularly write for the WSJ editorial page had any concern for taxes that hit the average joe the hardest. This is the kind of tax they have been arguing forever because it transfers the burden of taxation onto the middle class.

Free-market fundamentalists have seen their ideology thoroughly discredited and they now fear the backlash, which explains their need for fear-mongering.

“There’s class warfare, all right,but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Warren Buffett http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

Typical rightwing fear-mongering. "Despite claims to the contrary, the President’s proposals concerning the top two income tax rates, limitations on itemized deductions and personal exemptions, and the carried interest tax break would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners. In fact, most small businesses would benefit substantially — from proposals to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income tax payers in the form of the Making Work Pay tax credit and to reform the health care system." http://www.cbpp.org/2-28-09tax.htm

Despite their claims, free marketeers like Brooks aren't centrists. The political center recognizes the fundamental role of government in the economy and acknowledges the necessity of welfare both to the have nots and business.

First, conservatives compared Obama to a messiah, now they tell us he is no messiah as if the rest of us ever thought he was. Attributing to others your own ridiculous constructs to better demolish them, it's called a strawman argument.

There is little left to destroy, free market fundamentalists took care of that, and certainly not through "over-achieving", in spite of the kool-aid some around here seem to be drinking.

You aren't listening. If a significant pull out occurs it'll be because conditions allow it, otherwise it either won't happen or they'll pull out everybody (the former is much more probable considering the prize). No need to start playing your little violin about Obama putting soldiers' lives in danger. Leaving a large force behind precisely means they aren't abandonning the "mission". Uhm... so how is this any different than what John McCain said? Oh wait! It isn't! As I have said all along, all politicians are all alike. Promises are already showing themselves to be facade. So, we went from out in two months, to 16 months, to out in 2 years with a residual force (of 50,000), to out whenever conditions on the ground warrant a pull out (with a residual force). No. He always planned on having a residual force. Obviously you don't read the right press (what a surprise ...). As to the schedule for withdrawal, conditions on the ground are bound to have an effect. Let it be clear that I am for a complete pull out starting yesterday. well, Biden wants to partition Iraq, so he is not much less hawkish than McCain. well, at least Obama recognized what american have wanted for years. It's a start.

You aren't listening. If a significant pull out occurs it'll be because conditions allow it, otherwise it either won't happen or they'll pull out everybody (the former is much more probable considering the prize). No need to start playing your little violin about Obama putting soldiers' lives in danger. Leaving a large force behind precisely means they aren't abandonning the "mission".

It's all checked since before the election as I have already said here. Obama never had any plan to pull out all forces out of Iraq. His platform always called for a residual force of several 10k soldiers and most contractors. I agree that leaving a substantial number of troops essentially keeps alive Bush's objective of controlling iraqi oil with an invasion force, but I wouldn't worry too much about a pull out leading to a dangerous situation because if it didn't allow it, withdrawal wouldn't really happen or may be they'd pull out completely.

He never had plans to completely pull out of Iraq. He always said he would leave several 10,000's of troops plus contractors. Yet, he is still far and away a welcome change from Bush, as long as folks keep putting pressure on him to do the right thing.

Mission accomplished to get the taxpayer to keep paying for the control of oil by oil majors. I never thought that Obama would totally pull out of Iraq so no surprise there, though I am a little surprised by his getting further stuck in the afghan quagmire.

I suspect Obama went off script during his speech and CNN printed the official version. I remember clearly that he specifically discussed social security and medicare according to the terms in the quote in my post. The offciial transcript has no mention whatsoever of SS and medicare.

The speech posted by Kevbone isn't exactly what he said. In particular, he did say: "To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security [...] Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans." Although Obama has said before that he wouldn't cut back on social security and that it was basically a sound program, there are reasons to be concerned. Remains also to be seen what he means by "universal savings accounts" and where the money will come from. Conservative propaganda has effectively lead people to believe that SS was nearly bankrupt but nothing is further from the truth: More here: Looting Social Security

what he might be thinking now? Mission accomplished and it looks as if I'll get away with it?

almost no taxation, rule of law, it follows from Milton Friedman that this would be a socially liberal paradise right? Oh, wait, it was for tax cheating europeans, Indian criminals and oil money Compared to its neighbors, it certainly looks like one. I think that the argument was that political and economic liberties are mutually reinforcing and the latter can act as an essential check on state power - not that Lubbock Texas and Venice Beach will have the same social attitudes because the citizens there have the same economic rights. At moments like this it becomes obvious that JayB's vision of paradise includes "living the good life" on the back of 100,000's of asian workers who live in slave like conditions: "Once they arrive in the United Arab Emirates, migrant workers are treated little better than cattle, with no access to healthcare and many other basic rights. The company that sponsors them holds on to their passports - and often a month or two of their wages to make sure that they keep working. And for this some will earn just 400 dirhams (£62) a month. A group of construction engineers told me, with no apparent shame, that if a worker becomes too ill to work he will be sent home after a few days. "They are the cheapest commodity here. Steel, concrete, everything is up, but workers are the same." ... Down at the base of the pyramid are the labourers, waiters, hotel employees and unskilled workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, the Philippines and beyond. They move deferentially around the huge malls, cafes, bars and restaurants, bowing down and calling people sir and madam. In the middle of the day, during the hottest hours, you can see them sleeping in public gardens under trees, or on the marble floors of the Dubai Mosque, on benches or pieces of cardboard on side streets. These are the victims of the racism that is not only flourishing in the UAE but is increasingly being exported to the rest of the Middle East. Sometimes it reminds you of the American south in the 1930s. One evening in Abu Dhabi, I have dinner with my friend Ali, a charming Iraqi engineer whom I have known for two decades. After the meal, as his wife serves saffron-flavoured tea, he pushes back his chair and lights a cigar. We talk about stock markets, investment and the Middle East, and then the issue of race comes up. "We will never use the new metro if it's not segregated," he tells me, referring to the state-of-the-art underground system being built in neighbouring Dubai. "We will never sit next to Indians and Pakistanis with their smell," his wife explains. Not for the first time, I am told that while the immigrant workers are living in appalling conditions, they would be even worse off back home - as if poverty in one place can justify exploitation in the other. "We need slaves," my friend says. "We need slaves to build monuments. Look who built the pyramids - they were slaves." 'Link to article: We need slaves to build monuments'

Right, PP's soundbyte concerns 2.5% of the total stimulus package. That is assuming we can take seriously anything written by Samuelson considering his habit of regurgitating GOP talking points. Did you guys notice that most of the better "more bang for the buck" in STP's figure were fought tooth and nail by republicans. It ought to tell us how genuine they are in their complaining about the lack of effectiveness of the stimulus package.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/19/gordon-brown-tax-avoidance-switzerland isn't it interesting that pols everywhere are discovering tax havens?

Impossible to be sure of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden had been dead for a number of years, which may explain why we aren't looking for him.

Although my batting average is excellent, reading the articles out of Business week, the guardian, bloomberg, and from that investigative journalist's website I posted, should be sufficient. But of course, you have nothing of substance to contribute, so per usual, ad-hominem put-downs is all you can do

[video:youtube]t_a5FIhtZvw