actually it's just more insane gibberish

comparing universal healthcare to Naziism??? good gawd

if you want to see the current remnants of the Nazi Party look no further than the idiots who worship Glenn Beck conspiracy crap and the rest of the Fox Noise fascists

could be a headfake also, but Swenlin is always one to read and to be respected


here's Sy Harding's take on it, but only your hairdresser knows for sure ;^)

EU Rescues Markets Just in Time - Again!
BEING STREET SMART
by Sy Harding
June 29, 2012.

At their 19th summit meeting since the eurozone crisis began two years ago European officials once again demonstrated their willingness to take markets to the very brink before taking action.

And once again it worked, with markets rallying in hopes that the actions just announced will be more lasting and meaningful than the previous rescue efforts.

From the timing, one could get the impression EU officials spent much of their meeting on Thursday watching markets before feeling forced to reach an agreement. Markets in Europe had already closed down again on Thursday. Yields on Spanish and Italian bonds had risen to levels where bailouts of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland had previously become necessary. And in the U.S. on Thursday the Dow was down 175 points and looking like the bottom was about to drop out further, with an hour left to the close.

Out of the blue word suddenly crossed the tape that German Chancellor Merkel had cancelled her scheduled news conference, which was expected to report lack of progress, and word leaked that a major compromise and agreement had indeed been reached.

The U.S. market plunge reversed on a dime, and the Dow closed down only 24 points.

Then after an all-night EU session, a further announcement was made giving more information on the EU agreement just before European markets opened. And they surged up from the open, with the U.S. market also surging up on Friday.

The question now becomes whether the actions promised will be enough this time to finally contain the eurozone debt crisis. They seem to be significant. But then, each previous action had to be greater than the one before, as each failed to work.

Details are still missing, but the agreement being hammered out over the weekend is apparently one of immediate short-term actions, and an outline for a long-term plan that will be delayed until a study is completed for their October meeting. Short-term actions include allowing European banks to borrow money directly from the euro-zone bailout programs, rather than the funds going first to the country’s government and then to the banks, which was adding to government debts. And the bailout funds can also now be used to buy the bonds of individual euro-zone countries having difficulty selling their bonds, with the European Central Bank given more power to oversee the bailout funds.

Like the previous emergency actions of the last two years, this one seems to be another short-term fix that will hopefully buy enough time to come up with a longer-term solution.

The problem each time in the past has been that as soon as the markets seemed relieved by the short-term fix, officials returned to bickering and dysfunction that pushed off the formation of the promised long-term plans and allowed the crisis to come back in a more drastic form.

But we shall see. Maybe this time will be different.

Meanwhile, it does have a spooky similarity to last summer.

Last summer the market topped out on May 1, as it did this year. Last year the summer correction seemed to end at its low on June 29, when it spiked up in reaction to the euro-zone debt crisis easing overnight, accompanied by Fed Chairman Bernanke’s statement that the Fed was ready to act “if needed”.

But the rally early last July lasted only until July 7, when the market topped out into its much more severe second leg down to the October low. It had run into the reality that the easing of the eurozone debt crisis and Bernanke’s promise, did not change the fact that the U.S. economic slowdown was still worsening. And indeed the economy continued to deteriorate, as did the stock market, until the S&P 500 was down 21%, and the Fed did finally step in with ‘operation twist’.

And here we are with markets spiking on the same day this year as we end a dismal 2nd quarter and enter July, and on a similar catalyst of a promised easing of the eurozone crisis, and the U.S. Fed standing aside but promising to come to the rescue “if needed”.

And just as was the case with that one week spike-up from June 29 last year, the latest efforts to solve the eurozone debt crisis do not change the fact that the U.S. economic slowdown continues to worsen. And unlike last year, this year the worsening U.S. economy is accompanied by slowing economies around the world, with many major global markets in bear markets as a result.

Am I excited by the EU actions and the market’s sudden upside reversal? Not yet. Let’s wait and see what happens after the July 4th holiday when the next monthly jobs reports is released on July 6.

One thing we can be fairly sure of. The market’s recovery, even if it turns out to be only brief, and the actions being taken by European officials, will take the pressure off an already reluctant Fed and have it even more reluctant to come to the rescue anytime soon.

New BUY Signal for S&P 500 Index
by Carl Swenlin
06/29/2012

Today our mechanical Thrust/Trend Model (T/TM) for the S&P 500 switched from NEUTRAL to BUY. For our purposes, the S&P 500 represents "the market."

(This is an excerpt from the June 29, 2012 blog

The signal was generated by the Thrust Component of the T/TM, which consists of the PMO (Price Momentum Oscillator) and the PBI (Percent Buy Index). Once both of these indicators have moved above their EMAs, a BUY signal is generated. You can see that the PMO crossover occurred earlier this month. The PBI crossover occurred today, which was more delayed than we normally see.

While the T/TM is intended for intermediate-term timing, the Thrust Component of the model is really more short-term oriented and its intended effect is an earlier entry than we would normally get from the Trend Component alone. This makes it vulnerable to whipsaw.

At this point we will wait for the Trend Component to confirm the signal, which will happen when the 20-EMA crosses up through the 50-EMA. This will take a while because there is still a lot of separation between the two. (See arrows on the thumbnail chart above.)

The timing model is far from perfect, but it has proven to be a fairly reliable tool for identifying changes in trend. At this point we have to assume that a new up leg is in progress. Our intermediate-term market posture is now bullish.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Technical analysis is a windsock, not a crystal ball.

http://blogs.decisionpoint.com/chart_spotlight/2012/06/20120629cs.html

Bernie Buzz: A Good Day for America
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
FROM: Senator Bernie Sanders

June 28, 2012

Affordable Care Act Upheld

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

"It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

"I am proud that Vermont is making steady progress toward implementing a single-payer system. I hope our state will be a model to show the rest of the nation how to provide better care at less cost to more people."

Bernie Buzz: A Good Day for America
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
FROM: Senator Bernie Sanders

June 28, 2012

Affordable Care Act Upheld

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

"It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

"I am proud that Vermont is making steady progress toward implementing a single-payer system. I hope our state will be a model to show the rest of the nation how to provide better care at less cost to more people."

Roberts’ Switch
http://robertreich.org/post/26086712733
Thursday, June 28, 2012

Today a majority of the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare in recognition of its importance as a key initiative of the Obama administration. The big surprise, for many, was the vote by the Chief Justice of the Court, John Roberts, to join with the Court’s four liberals.

Roberts’ decision is not without precedent. Seventy-five years ago, another Justice Roberts – no relation to the current Chief Justice – made a similar switch. Justice Owen Roberts had voted with the Court’s conservative majority in a host of 5-4 decisions invalidating New Deal legislation, but in March of 1937 he suddenly switched sides and began joining with the Court’s four liberals. In popular lore, Roberts’ switch saved the Court – not only from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack it with justices more amenable to the New Deal but, more importantly, from the public’s increasing perception of the Court as a partisan, political branch of government.

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t related to his namesake but the current Roberts’ move today marks a close parallel. By joining with the Court’s four liberals who have been in the minority in many important cases – including the 2010 decision, Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission, which struck down constraints on corporate political spending as being in violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech – the current Justice Roberts may have, like his earlier namesake, saved the Court from a growing reputation for political partisanship.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out when the Constitution was being written, the Supreme Court is the “least dangerous branch” of government because it has neither the purse (it can’t enforce its rulings by threatening to withhold public money) nor the sword (it has no police or military to back up its decisions). It has only the trust and confidence of average citizens. If it is viewed as politically partisan, that trust is in jeopardy. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to maintain and enhance that trust.

Nothing else explains John Roberts’ switch – certainly not the convoluted constitutional logic he used to arrive at his decision. On the most critical issue in the case – whether the so-called “individual mandate” requiring almost all Americans to purchase health insurance was a constitutionally-permissible extension of federal power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution – Roberts agreed with his conservative brethren that it was not.

Roberts nonetheless upheld the law because, he reasoned, the penalty to be collected by the government for non-compliance with the law is the equivalent of a tax – and the federal government has the power to tax. By this bizarre logic, the federal government can pass all sorts of unconstitutional laws – requiring people to sell themselves into slavery, for example – as long as the penalty for failing to do so is considered to be a tax.

Regardless of the fragility of Roberts’ logic, the Court’s majority has given a huge victory to the Obama administration and, arguably, the American people. The Affordable Care Act is still flawed – it doesn’t do nearly enough to control increases in healthcare costs that already constitute 18 percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product, and will soar even further as the baby boomers age – but it is a milestone. And like many other pieces of important legislation before it – Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights and Voting Rights – it will be improved upon. Every Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has sought universal health care, to no avail.

But over the next four months the Act will be a political football. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has vowed to repeal the law as soon as he is elected (an odd promise in that no president can change or repeal a law without a majority of the House of Representatives and sixty Senators). Romney reiterated that vow this morning, after the Supreme Court announced its decision. His campaign, and so-called independent groups that have been collecting tens of millions of dollars from Romney supporters (and Obama haters), have already launched advertising campaigns condemning the Act.

Unfortunately for President Obama – and for Chief Justice Roberts, to the extent his aim in joining with the Court’s four liberals was to reduce the public appearance of the Court’s political partisanship – the four conservatives on the Court, all appointed by Republican presidents, were fiercely united in their view that the entire Act is unconstitutional. Their view will surely become part of the Romney campaign.

Roberts’ Switch
http://robertreich.org/post/26086712733
Thursday, June 28, 2012

Today a majority of the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare in recognition of its importance as a key initiative of the Obama administration. The big surprise, for many, was the vote by the Chief Justice of the Court, John Roberts, to join with the Court’s four liberals.

Roberts’ decision is not without precedent. Seventy-five years ago, another Justice Roberts – no relation to the current Chief Justice – made a similar switch. Justice Owen Roberts had voted with the Court’s conservative majority in a host of 5-4 decisions invalidating New Deal legislation, but in March of 1937 he suddenly switched sides and began joining with the Court’s four liberals. In popular lore, Roberts’ switch saved the Court – not only from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack it with justices more amenable to the New Deal but, more importantly, from the public’s increasing perception of the Court as a partisan, political branch of government.

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t related to his namesake but the current Roberts’ move today marks a close parallel. By joining with the Court’s four liberals who have been in the minority in many important cases – including the 2010 decision, Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission, which struck down constraints on corporate political spending as being in violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech – the current Justice Roberts may have, like his earlier namesake, saved the Court from a growing reputation for political partisanship.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out when the Constitution was being written, the Supreme Court is the “least dangerous branch” of government because it has neither the purse (it can’t enforce its rulings by threatening to withhold public money) nor the sword (it has no police or military to back up its decisions). It has only the trust and confidence of average citizens. If it is viewed as politically partisan, that trust is in jeopardy. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to maintain and enhance that trust.

Nothing else explains John Roberts’ switch – certainly not the convoluted constitutional logic he used to arrive at his decision. On the most critical issue in the case – whether the so-called “individual mandate” requiring almost all Americans to purchase health insurance was a constitutionally-permissible extension of federal power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution – Roberts agreed with his conservative brethren that it was not.

Roberts nonetheless upheld the law because, he reasoned, the penalty to be collected by the government for non-compliance with the law is the equivalent of a tax – and the federal government has the power to tax. By this bizarre logic, the federal government can pass all sorts of unconstitutional laws – requiring people to sell themselves into slavery, for example – as long as the penalty for failing to do so is considered to be a tax.

Regardless of the fragility of Roberts’ logic, the Court’s majority has given a huge victory to the Obama administration and, arguably, the American people. The Affordable Care Act is still flawed – it doesn’t do nearly enough to control increases in healthcare costs that already constitute 18 percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product, and will soar even further as the baby boomers age – but it is a milestone. And like many other pieces of important legislation before it – Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights and Voting Rights – it will be improved upon. Every Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has sought universal health care, to no avail.

But over the next four months the Act will be a political football. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has vowed to repeal the law as soon as he is elected (an odd promise in that no president can change or repeal a law without a majority of the House of Representatives and sixty Senators). Romney reiterated that vow this morning, after the Supreme Court announced its decision. His campaign, and so-called independent groups that have been collecting tens of millions of dollars from Romney supporters (and Obama haters), have already launched advertising campaigns condemning the Act.

Unfortunately for President Obama – and for Chief Justice Roberts, to the extent his aim in joining with the Court’s four liberals was to reduce the public appearance of the Court’s political partisanship – the four conservatives on the Court, all appointed by Republican presidents, were fiercely united in their view that the entire Act is unconstitutional. Their view will surely become part of the Romney campaign.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate As A Tax

Jun 28, 2012 at 10:09 am

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate in Obamacare, paving the way for full implementation of the law in the states and ensuring that millions of uninsured Americans haves access to affordable coverage. The court upheld the provision as a tax, but found that it does violate the Commerce Clause.

The Medicaid expansion is limited, but not invalidated, the court found. In short, it decided that if a state does not expand the Medicaid program, as required by the law, federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funds.

In short, “the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan in the 5 to 4 decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy — who was considered a swing vote on in the case — sided with the conservatives.

take another hit off your libertarian bong

and go snuggle up with your butt buddies, nybob benzoid geo walnuts etc

Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word

Legions of construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads. Does this make sense?

By ALAN S. BLINDER
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577478561041473358.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A debate now rages in Europe over whether fiscal austerity—that is, higher taxes and less spending—helps or hinders growth. That's progress of sorts. Not long ago, European policy makers seemed stuck on the notion that austerity promotes growth. Yes, we were supposed to believe that countries grow faster when their governments spend less and tax more.

Events in Europe seem to have dashed that idea. But a similar debate rages here in the U.S.—with the lone exception that our pro-austerity crowd abhors tax increases. It's a highly partisan debate, too, the sort that an election should decide.

Many Democrats, including President Obama, want to help state and local governments maintain their spending, which has now dropped 6.4% since its 2008 peak—and is still falling. Most Republicans reject that idea, even when it saves the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and police officers.

Many Democrats also want to build and repair more roads, bridges, tunnels and the like—taking advantage of the rare combination of historically low government borrowing rates and historically high unemployment among construction workers. Most Republicans reject that idea, too, even though the argument for more public capital is the same as the argument for more private capital—each promotes growth.

Democrats also typically seek a growth strategy that boosts the incomes of the middle class, not just of the top 1%. Many Republicans counter that the most effective way to bolster middle-class incomes is via trickle-down from the rich—who start and grow businesses.

Politics aside, suppose we actually got serious about a pro-growth agenda based on logic and facts rather than on partisan ideology. What would it look like? Here are a few ideas:

• Budget policy. For openers, as I advocated in these pages last month, we need a two-pronged fiscal package. In the near term, we need modest stimulus, focused tightly on creating jobs. But that stimulus should be paired with a vastly larger dose of long-run deficit reduction—perhaps 10 to 20 times as large as the stimulus—over the 10-year budget window.

Economically, this can be done; it's not even that hard. But if Republicans continue to reject even deals comprised of $10 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases, it's hard to see how we get there politically.

• Private investment. Republicans are right that business investment is the key to growth. Fortunately, business investment has done very nicely, thank you, despite the sluggish economy—growing 8.4% over the past year and at an annual rate of 10.8% over the past two years. (The corresponding growth rates for GDP were about 2%.) So while there's always room for improvement, business investment is not part of the problem. The best thing policy can do for private investment is to get the overall economy growing faster.

• Public investment. Unlike private investment, inadequate public investment is part of the problem. America's infrastructure needs are so huge, and so painfully obvious, that it's mind-boggling we're not investing more. The U.S. government can now borrow for five years at about 0.75% and for 10 years at about 1.7%. Both rates are far below expected inflation, making real interest rates sharply negative. Yet legions of skilled construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads and creaky bridges. Does this make sense?

• Education. Everyone knows that the returns to education, while large, are long delayed. That means we have no time to waste. We should be doing a much better job of building a better educated, more productive work force for the future. A Council on Foreign Relations task force co-chaired by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein recently argued that better K-12 education is critical to American leadership in the world and therefore to our national security.

That idea is neither new nor partisan. Where things do get partisan is in choosing between working harder on traditional public schools versus relying on vouchers, charter schools and the like to provide competition. Here, the research is interesting. It suggests that, on average, charter schools perform neither better nor worse than public schools.

• Tax reform. Finally, we could reap a small growth dividend by moving to a smarter, simpler, less distortionary tax system. Both parties agree that the current tax code is a disgrace, but that's about where bipartisan agreement on taxes ends.

Republicans often focus on lowering the top income tax rate. Just like Gingrich Republicans did in 1993, Romney-Boehner Republicans now want us to believe that the success or failure of the U.S. economy hinges on whether the top bracket rate is 39.6% (which President Obama prefers), 35% (where it is now), or 28% (as in Mitt Romney's proposal).

But the evidence is against the GOP on this one. We've experimented with moving the top rate up or down a few percentage points several times. Under President Clinton in 1993, we raised it to 39.6% from 36% and one of the greatest periods of prosperity in U.S. history followed. Then in 2001, under President George W. Bush, we cut the top rate to 35% from 39.6% and . . . well, you know what followed.

Why in the world are we still arguing about this? Our focus, instead, should be on devising a fairer and more neutral tax system in which decisions regarding the allocation of resources are made by individuals and businesses, not by Congress.

So let's see. If we are serious about an evidence-based program that spurs growth and improves the lots of average Americans, we should want a near-term jobs program, long-term deficit reduction, more spending on infrastructure, improvements in education, and a tax reform that clears out loopholes, returns to the 39.6% top rate, and protects the middle class.

Which candidate does that remind you of?

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

A version of this article appeared June 26, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word.

Rand Paul Just Wants To Add a ‘Life Begins at Conception’ Plank To This Flood Insurance Bill, What’s the Problem?

by Jim Newell
http://wonkette.com/476518/rand-paul-just-wants-to-add-a-life#more-476518

The Senate is trying to pass a flood insurance bill, and all Rand Paul wants to do is improve the quality of flood insurance that Americans nationwide will enjoy in the years ahead. Specifically, he wants to add a lil’ Life at Conception Act, which would “ensure equal protection for right to life of each born and preborn human person.” Why won’t Harry Reid bring this amendment to a vote on a flood insurance bill?

Rand Paul has spent his early summer offering all sorts of practical amendments, like one for the farm bill that would cut off aid to Pakistan. That was germane enough, but this one, to attach life-begins-at-conception language to a flood insurance bill, is hella germane like the dickens. And yet pro-life Mormon Harry Reid won’t allow this, because he loves abortion:

“I’m told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment — listen to this one — wants to offer an amendment on when life begins,” Reid said. “There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We’ll either do flood insurance with amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won’t do it, we’ll have an extension.

“I don’t understand what this is all about,” Reid added. “But I want everyone to know: This flood insurance is extremely important. The big pushers of this bill are Republicans senators, veteran Republican senators.

“They better work on their side of the aisle, because I am not going to put up with that,” he concluded. “If the Republicans won’t stand up to that, to the person who’s going to that, I’m not going to.”

Stand your ground, Rand Paul!

Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word

Legions of construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads. Does this make sense?

By ALAN S. BLINDER
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577478561041473358.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A debate now rages in Europe over whether fiscal austerity—that is, higher taxes and less spending—helps or hinders growth. That's progress of sorts. Not long ago, European policy makers seemed stuck on the notion that austerity promotes growth. Yes, we were supposed to believe that countries grow faster when their governments spend less and tax more.

Events in Europe seem to have dashed that idea. But a similar debate rages here in the U.S.—with the lone exception that our pro-austerity crowd abhors tax increases. It's a highly partisan debate, too, the sort that an election should decide.

Many Democrats, including President Obama, want to help state and local governments maintain their spending, which has now dropped 6.4% since its 2008 peak—and is still falling. Most Republicans reject that idea, even when it saves the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and police officers.

Many Democrats also want to build and repair more roads, bridges, tunnels and the like—taking advantage of the rare combination of historically low government borrowing rates and historically high unemployment among construction workers. Most Republicans reject that idea, too, even though the argument for more public capital is the same as the argument for more private capital—each promotes growth.

Democrats also typically seek a growth strategy that boosts the incomes of the middle class, not just of the top 1%. Many Republicans counter that the most effective way to bolster middle-class incomes is via trickle-down from the rich—who start and grow businesses.

Politics aside, suppose we actually got serious about a pro-growth agenda based on logic and facts rather than on partisan ideology. What would it look like? Here are a few ideas:

• Budget policy. For openers, as I advocated in these pages last month, we need a two-pronged fiscal package. In the near term, we need modest stimulus, focused tightly on creating jobs. But that stimulus should be paired with a vastly larger dose of long-run deficit reduction—perhaps 10 to 20 times as large as the stimulus—over the 10-year budget window.

Economically, this can be done; it's not even that hard. But if Republicans continue to reject even deals comprised of $10 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases, it's hard to see how we get there politically.

• Private investment. Republicans are right that business investment is the key to growth. Fortunately, business investment has done very nicely, thank you, despite the sluggish economy—growing 8.4% over the past year and at an annual rate of 10.8% over the past two years. (The corresponding growth rates for GDP were about 2%.) So while there's always room for improvement, business investment is not part of the problem. The best thing policy can do for private investment is to get the overall economy growing faster.

• Public investment. Unlike private investment, inadequate public investment is part of the problem. America's infrastructure needs are so huge, and so painfully obvious, that it's mind-boggling we're not investing more. The U.S. government can now borrow for five years at about 0.75% and for 10 years at about 1.7%. Both rates are far below expected inflation, making real interest rates sharply negative. Yet legions of skilled construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads and creaky bridges. Does this make sense?

• Education. Everyone knows that the returns to education, while large, are long delayed. That means we have no time to waste. We should be doing a much better job of building a better educated, more productive work force for the future. A Council on Foreign Relations task force co-chaired by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein recently argued that better K-12 education is critical to American leadership in the world and therefore to our national security.

That idea is neither new nor partisan. Where things do get partisan is in choosing between working harder on traditional public schools versus relying on vouchers, charter schools and the like to provide competition. Here, the research is interesting. It suggests that, on average, charter schools perform neither better nor worse than public schools.

• Tax reform. Finally, we could reap a small growth dividend by moving to a smarter, simpler, less distortionary tax system. Both parties agree that the current tax code is a disgrace, but that's about where bipartisan agreement on taxes ends.

Republicans often focus on lowering the top income tax rate. Just like Gingrich Republicans did in 1993, Romney-Boehner Republicans now want us to believe that the success or failure of the U.S. economy hinges on whether the top bracket rate is 39.6% (which President Obama prefers), 35% (where it is now), or 28% (as in Mitt Romney's proposal).

But the evidence is against the GOP on this one. We've experimented with moving the top rate up or down a few percentage points several times. Under President Clinton in 1993, we raised it to 39.6% from 36% and one of the greatest periods of prosperity in U.S. history followed. Then in 2001, under President George W. Bush, we cut the top rate to 35% from 39.6% and . . . well, you know what followed.

Why in the world are we still arguing about this? Our focus, instead, should be on devising a fairer and more neutral tax system in which decisions regarding the allocation of resources are made by individuals and businesses, not by Congress.

So let's see. If we are serious about an evidence-based program that spurs growth and improves the lots of average Americans, we should want a near-term jobs program, long-term deficit reduction, more spending on infrastructure, improvements in education, and a tax reform that clears out loopholes, returns to the 39.6% top rate, and protects the middle class.

Which candidate does that remind you of?

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

A version of this article appeared June 26, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word.

Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word

Legions of construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads. Does this make sense?

By ALAN S. BLINDER
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577478561041473358.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A debate now rages in Europe over whether fiscal austerity—that is, higher taxes and less spending—helps or hinders growth. That's progress of sorts. Not long ago, European policy makers seemed stuck on the notion that austerity promotes growth. Yes, we were supposed to believe that countries grow faster when their governments spend less and tax more.

Events in Europe seem to have dashed that idea. But a similar debate rages here in the U.S.—with the lone exception that our pro-austerity crowd abhors tax increases. It's a highly partisan debate, too, the sort that an election should decide.

Many Democrats, including President Obama, want to help state and local governments maintain their spending, which has now dropped 6.4% since its 2008 peak—and is still falling. Most Republicans reject that idea, even when it saves the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and police officers.

Many Democrats also want to build and repair more roads, bridges, tunnels and the like—taking advantage of the rare combination of historically low government borrowing rates and historically high unemployment among construction workers. Most Republicans reject that idea, too, even though the argument for more public capital is the same as the argument for more private capital—each promotes growth.

Democrats also typically seek a growth strategy that boosts the incomes of the middle class, not just of the top 1%. Many Republicans counter that the most effective way to bolster middle-class incomes is via trickle-down from the rich—who start and grow businesses.

Politics aside, suppose we actually got serious about a pro-growth agenda based on logic and facts rather than on partisan ideology. What would it look like? Here are a few ideas:

• Budget policy. For openers, as I advocated in these pages last month, we need a two-pronged fiscal package. In the near term, we need modest stimulus, focused tightly on creating jobs. But that stimulus should be paired with a vastly larger dose of long-run deficit reduction—perhaps 10 to 20 times as large as the stimulus—over the 10-year budget window.

Economically, this can be done; it's not even that hard. But if Republicans continue to reject even deals comprised of $10 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases, it's hard to see how we get there politically.

• Private investment. Republicans are right that business investment is the key to growth. Fortunately, business investment has done very nicely, thank you, despite the sluggish economy—growing 8.4% over the past year and at an annual rate of 10.8% over the past two years. (The corresponding growth rates for GDP were about 2%.) So while there's always room for improvement, business investment is not part of the problem. The best thing policy can do for private investment is to get the overall economy growing faster.

• Public investment. Unlike private investment, inadequate public investment is part of the problem. America's infrastructure needs are so huge, and so painfully obvious, that it's mind-boggling we're not investing more. The U.S. government can now borrow for five years at about 0.75% and for 10 years at about 1.7%. Both rates are far below expected inflation, making real interest rates sharply negative. Yet legions of skilled construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads and creaky bridges. Does this make sense?

• Education. Everyone knows that the returns to education, while large, are long delayed. That means we have no time to waste. We should be doing a much better job of building a better educated, more productive work force for the future. A Council on Foreign Relations task force co-chaired by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein recently argued that better K-12 education is critical to American leadership in the world and therefore to our national security.

That idea is neither new nor partisan. Where things do get partisan is in choosing between working harder on traditional public schools versus relying on vouchers, charter schools and the like to provide competition. Here, the research is interesting. It suggests that, on average, charter schools perform neither better nor worse than public schools.

• Tax reform. Finally, we could reap a small growth dividend by moving to a smarter, simpler, less distortionary tax system. Both parties agree that the current tax code is a disgrace, but that's about where bipartisan agreement on taxes ends.

Republicans often focus on lowering the top income tax rate. Just like Gingrich Republicans did in 1993, Romney-Boehner Republicans now want us to believe that the success or failure of the U.S. economy hinges on whether the top bracket rate is 39.6% (which President Obama prefers), 35% (where it is now), or 28% (as in Mitt Romney's proposal).

But the evidence is against the GOP on this one. We've experimented with moving the top rate up or down a few percentage points several times. Under President Clinton in 1993, we raised it to 39.6% from 36% and one of the greatest periods of prosperity in U.S. history followed. Then in 2001, under President George W. Bush, we cut the top rate to 35% from 39.6% and . . . well, you know what followed.

Why in the world are we still arguing about this? Our focus, instead, should be on devising a fairer and more neutral tax system in which decisions regarding the allocation of resources are made by individuals and businesses, not by Congress.

So let's see. If we are serious about an evidence-based program that spurs growth and improves the lots of average Americans, we should want a near-term jobs program, long-term deficit reduction, more spending on infrastructure, improvements in education, and a tax reform that clears out loopholes, returns to the 39.6% top rate, and protects the middle class.

Which candidate does that remind you of?

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

A version of this article appeared June 26, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word.

yes, i posted a simple article explaining how it's better to have regulation in commodities markets as opposed to letting traders run wild,, remember Enron? remember 2007-2008?

and your response was Obama conspiracy crap... it's not my fault you have Obama Derangement Syndrome

Alex, do you really believe that crap??
The CFTC is paid off by Obamas cronies as is the CME; they look the other way as in MF Global and
JP Morgue.
The Banks, Obama Corzine, Dimon.Same person.

sorry if the truth hurts

now quit polluting the board with your moronic Obama hatred conspiracy and politics

Since April President Obama Cut Oil Prices 21%, Boosted GDP $78.4 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/06/23/since-april-president-obama-cut-oil-prices-21-boosted-gdp-78-4-billion/

In April, I predicted that President Obama’s $52 million plan to increase the margin requirements and otherwise tighten the screws on oil speculators — who borrow huge sums to bet on the direction of oil without taking delivery — would cut oil prices by 10%. He’s beaten that prediction and the lowered price of gasoline has added $78.4 billion to its consumers’ spending power.

In case you never heard about it, in April the Obama administration asked Congress to spend $52 million to regulate this speculation. According to the Washington Post, this included the following steps:

- Increase by a factor of six Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) surveillance and enforcement staff “to better deter oil market manipulation,”

- Boost 10-fold to $10 million the civil and criminal penalties against “firms that engage in market manipulation,”

- Give the CFTC authority to increase the trader margins — the amount of their own capital that traders must set aside for each bet. The administration officials said such authority “could help limit disruptions in energy markets,” according to the Post.

Why does this have anything to do with the price of oil? That’s simple. When oil hit $147 a barrel four years ago, those speculators accounted for 81% of the trading volume. And margin requirements can affect the price of oil.

When regulators raise those requirements, oil speculation becomes less attractive to traders and they place bets elsewhere. And when margin requirements drop, the traders pile into their oil speculations — confident that they can borrow enough to limit their downside while boosting their upside opportunity.

In February 2011, when commodities exchanges raised the amount of their own capital that speculators must set aside in order to trade — according to Bloomberg, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) increased its margin requirements 20% to $6,075 per contract, and the International Exchange (ICE) increased its margin requirement 7% to $5,200 – the price of oil fell 10% within a few months.

And a year later, the commodities exchanges cut the amount of capital that speculators need to set aside before trading — the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cut by 9% to $6,885 the amount that Nymex crude speculators have to post to trade the so-called front-month contract, according to MarketWatch – leading prices to soar to $109 that month.

So what’s happened since April? Oil ended the month at $106 and as of June 22, it had lost 21% of its value — sitting at $84. I guess I under-estimated the impact of the CME’s boost in margin requirements for oil speculators.

But there are other factors that could have affected the price of oil. For example, the dollar has strengthened compared to the Euro since the end of April — rising 6% from $1.33/Euro to $1.25/Euro – and since oil is traded in dollars, the stronger the dollar, the more oil it can buy.

It’s entirely possible that supply and demand have something to do with this as well. MarketWatch claims that “traders are more concerned about plentiful supplies and deteriorating demand expectations.” And on June 20, the EIA reported a 2.9 million barrel supply increase in the week ended June 15 while Platts analysts expected to see a decline of 600,000 barrels for the week.

Certainly oil prices affect gasoline prices and rising gasoline prices tax consumers’ budgets. According to AP, “every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billion.” So it stands to reason that a drop in the price of gasoline would add to consumers’ discretionary spending.

So just how much has President Obama stimulated the economy through his April crackdown on oil speculators? Well, if my experience is any indication, the answer is quite a bit. After all, I was paying about $4.05 a gallon for mid-grade back then and this week the price had fallen to $3.49.

That 56 cents a gallon decline would amount to me saving about $582 a year — assuming that I fill up my 20 gallon tank once a week. But if the AP is right, that same 56 cent a gallon drop would add $78.4 billion to U.S. GDP.

That’s not much for a $15 trillion economy, but it represents a 1,508% return on President Obama’s $52 million investment in two months.

Since April President Obama Cut Oil Prices 21%, Boosted GDP $78.4 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/06/23/since-april-president-obama-cut-oil-prices-21-boosted-gdp-78-4-billion/

In April, I predicted that President Obama’s $52 million plan to increase the margin requirements and otherwise tighten the screws on oil speculators — who borrow huge sums to bet on the direction of oil without taking delivery — would cut oil prices by 10%. He’s beaten that prediction and the lowered price of gasoline has added $78.4 billion to its consumers’ spending power.

In case you never heard about it, in April the Obama administration asked Congress to spend $52 million to regulate this speculation. According to the Washington Post, this included the following steps:

- Increase by a factor of six Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) surveillance and enforcement staff “to better deter oil market manipulation,”

- Boost 10-fold to $10 million the civil and criminal penalties against “firms that engage in market manipulation,”

- Give the CFTC authority to increase the trader margins — the amount of their own capital that traders must set aside for each bet. The administration officials said such authority “could help limit disruptions in energy markets,” according to the Post.

Why does this have anything to do with the price of oil? That’s simple. When oil hit $147 a barrel four years ago, those speculators accounted for 81% of the trading volume. And margin requirements can affect the price of oil.

When regulators raise those requirements, oil speculation becomes less attractive to traders and they place bets elsewhere. And when margin requirements drop, the traders pile into their oil speculations — confident that they can borrow enough to limit their downside while boosting their upside opportunity.

In February 2011, when commodities exchanges raised the amount of their own capital that speculators must set aside in order to trade — according to Bloomberg, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) increased its margin requirements 20% to $6,075 per contract, and the International Exchange (ICE) increased its margin requirement 7% to $5,200 – the price of oil fell 10% within a few months.

And a year later, the commodities exchanges cut the amount of capital that speculators need to set aside before trading — the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cut by 9% to $6,885 the amount that Nymex crude speculators have to post to trade the so-called front-month contract, according to MarketWatch – leading prices to soar to $109 that month.

So what’s happened since April? Oil ended the month at $106 and as of June 22, it had lost 21% of its value — sitting at $84. I guess I under-estimated the impact of the CME’s boost in margin requirements for oil speculators.

But there are other factors that could have affected the price of oil. For example, the dollar has strengthened compared to the Euro since the end of April — rising 6% from $1.33/Euro to $1.25/Euro – and since oil is traded in dollars, the stronger the dollar, the more oil it can buy.

It’s entirely possible that supply and demand have something to do with this as well. MarketWatch claims that “traders are more concerned about plentiful supplies and deteriorating demand expectations.” And on June 20, the EIA reported a 2.9 million barrel supply increase in the week ended June 15 while Platts analysts expected to see a decline of 600,000 barrels for the week.

Certainly oil prices affect gasoline prices and rising gasoline prices tax consumers’ budgets. According to AP, “every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billion.” So it stands to reason that a drop in the price of gasoline would add to consumers’ discretionary spending.

So just how much has President Obama stimulated the economy through his April crackdown on oil speculators? Well, if my experience is any indication, the answer is quite a bit. After all, I was paying about $4.05 a gallon for mid-grade back then and this week the price had fallen to $3.49.

That 56 cents a gallon decline would amount to me saving about $582 a year — assuming that I fill up my 20 gallon tank once a week. But if the AP is right, that same 56 cent a gallon drop would add $78.4 billion to U.S. GDP.

That’s not much for a $15 trillion economy, but it represents a 1,508% return on President Obama’s $52 million investment in two months.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.

“Instead of working to create jobs and get our economy back on track, Mike Turzai and the Republicans in Harrisburg have been laser focused on a partisan agenda that simply helps their donors and political allies,” said PA Dems spokesman Mark Nicastre.

“Mike Turzai’s admission that Voter ID only serves the partisan interests of his party should be shocking, but unfortunately it isn’t.

this is what 'n4807g' voted for... he always votes conservative thus he is responsible, yet now he's bitching about it???

and he will continue to vote for it and then bitch about it

vote for Romney and get even more conservative douchebags on SCOTUS... how monumentally stupid

conservatives, forever stuck on stupid

Mitt, the Outsourcing King

“Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain…, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to [SEC] filings….

A Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_print.html

History: ATF ran a series of “gunwalking” sting operations between 2006 and 2011. This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa admitted yesterday: The congressman heading an investigation into a botched gun-trafficking case said on Sunday he had no evidence the White House was involved in a cover-up about the operation or in providing misleading information to Congress. That’s despite what “several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), charged last week that President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the probe suggested that top administration officials were involved in withholding information.”
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/24/12384435-rep-issa-no-evidence-of-white-house-cover-up-in-fast-and-furious-gun-running-case?lite

From a former ATF agent: “The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, has relentlessly tried to destroy the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) since it was created in 1972. They came close under Ronald Reagan in 1981, when the NRA pushed legislation to abolish the agency. Realizing that federal gun law enforcement would transfer to the then much esteemed Secret Service, the NRA scuttled the proposal. [... the NRA's] support of the national database for criminal background checks was conditioned on prohibiting local ATF offices or other law enforcement agencies from accessing this information… the NRA also required that all records pertaining to the background checks be immediately destroyed. The NRA’s Republican allies in congress also blocked legislation that would ban cop-killer bullets and assault weapons and close the gun show loopholes.”
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/06/former-atf-agent-blasts-gop-fast-furious-foolishness/

Fast & Furious: the NRA (aka the GOP-led House) votes this week to hold AG Holder in contempt
Posted on June 25, 2012

Fast and Furious in a nutshell: “U.S. guns have been widely used by Mexican drug cartels. While U.S. gun dealers aren’t supposed to sell weapons to the cartels, a lot of dealers have been selling guns to straw purchasers who smuggle the guns to the cartels. The ATF could arrest and prosecute some individual gun smuggler, but solving the problem requires building a case against the big fish gun dealers who know their guns are going to the cartels. The idea was to follow the little guys until they meet up with the big bad guys. This sometimes meant preventing local law enforcement from arresting the guy they were using as bait. In the end, they were supposed to…arrest everybody and grab all the guns. Then they could build a legal case against some seriously bad guys.” Read more http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/25723662293/fast-and-furious-briefly

Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan of Politico report this morning: “[T]he House is expected Thursday to vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to fork over thousands of pages of internal Justice Department documents detailing why federal officials allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. [...] If the House approves the measure, it will be the first time in U.S. history that one of the chambers has voted to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt. Adding to the political pressure: The National Rifle Association said in a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that it would use the contempt vote in its influential political scorecard.“

Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:14 PM

A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

"You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.

I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

thanks for confirming your affection for GEO the hate-mongering sociopath


GEO928 Member Level

Share
Friday, September 23, 2011 10:49:29 PM
Re: fuagf post# 26907
Post # of 49039
you FUCKING SCUMBAG IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEZE.............

pick up the 45 and blow your worthless brains out......PLEEEEEEESE.....

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO LIVE......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

people cannot BE THAT FUCKIN' STUPID.....

spelling had nothing to do with it ....you communist scumbag piece of shit.....

the point about the spelling which you and that other idiot missed was that the article was written by a failed socialist foreigner....LIKE YOU....criticizing capitalism.....

DIRT-BAG FOREIGNERS CRITIZING CAPITALISM....????????!!!!!!!

WHEN THERE IS RIOTING IN THE STREETS IN THEIR SOCIALIST NATION....????????

that takes balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND, YOU....YOU IGNORANT AGENDA DRIVEN ENEMY, APPLAUD IT....

SHOOT YOURSELF.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you're worthless..............

Climactic Activity Encourages Caution
Chart Spotlight
by Carl Swenlin

The bottom three panels on the chart below display three of our ultra-short-term indicators. I don't want to trudge out into the weeds and discuss these indicators in detail. Rather I urge you to study the chart and observe how the extreme reading quite often pinpoint significant tops and bottoms.

This week these indicators reached very high levels, which we thought could at the very least lead to a short period of consolidation. We didn't predict the sharp decline on Thursday, but it was within the range of possibility considering the internal conditions.
http://blogs.decisionpoint.com/chart_spotlight/2012/06/20120622cs.html

cult-like gibberish... nothing more... take some meds

i have to admit, your gibberish is quite creative

pure insanity... but very creative

Here's an issue that hasn't been debated much in the presidential campaign but ought to be: How much should we spend on defense?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-romney-defense-spending-20120624,0,6596765.column

President Obama has proposed keeping the Pentagon budget essentially flat for the next 10 years. Mitt Romney, by contrast, wants to increase defense spending massively — by more than 50% over current levels, according to one estimate. That could mean almost $2 trillion in additional military spending over 10 years.

Romney hasn't actually proposed a defense budget or offered any specific numbers for his military strategy. But he says he wants core defense spending to reach at least 4% of the nation's gross domestic product — a big increase over the current level of about 3.2%. And he says the country needs about 100,000 more active-duty military personnel than the current 1.4 million, even though U.S. forces have left Iraq and have begun to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Romney's argument is that only increased U.S. militarypower can guarantee peace in the world. "A strong America is the best deterrent to war that has ever been invented," he told veterans in San Diego last month. He said his goal was "to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world.''

Of course, the United States already fields the strongest military in the world; U.S. core defense spending — that is, the amount we spend on our military excluding the cost of major wars — is already greater than that of the next 10 countries combined. The real questions are: How much is enough? How much can we afford? And in a time of shrinking federal budgets, how would we pay for it?

Let's start with what's enough. Romney's proposal for a defense budget of at least 4% of GDP isn't outlandish on its face; it's less than Ronald Reagan spent to help end the Cold War. But the number gives military strategists fits because it's based on an arbitrary economic benchmark, not an assessment of global threats.

The same is true of Romney's suspiciously round number of 100,000 for additional military personnel. Where did that number come from? Romney aides won't say, though they speak about the need for an enlarged Navy and Air Force to deploy in East Asia.

But the biggest problem with Romney's defense numbers is that they don't add up with the rest of his platform, which calls for decreasing federal spending overall while also lowering taxes — and, at the same time, balancing the budget.

"My administration will … make the hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts necessary to reduce spending to 20% of GDP by the end of my first term," Romney said in February. "And then, without sacrificing our military superiority, I will balance the budget."

A nice trick if he could pull it off, but it flies in the face of, well, arithmetic.

"It's just not realistic — and that's being generous," said Todd Harrison, an analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It would require a dramatic increase in defense spending to reach these targets. If you combine it with tax cuts and a commitment to avoid cutting Medicare, there's no way to do it without creating a much higher deficit."

Harrison crunched the numbers on Romney's call for a 4%-of-GDP floor on core defense spending. Here's what he came up with:

Using Congressional Budget Office estimates for future GDP, Romney's plan would boost core defense spending to about $945 billion in 2021 — about 53% more than the $618 billion proposed in Obama's defense plan for that year.

One has to wonder, Harrison said, "if this is just a talking point, and if they have actually looked at these numbers themselves."

I asked a Romney advisor who should know: Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon's chief financial officer in the administration ofGeorge W. Bush. Zakheim said Romney was serious about the goal but hasn't specified a date for reaching it — and as a result, no specific spending forecast is possible.

"It is a target," he said. "The sooner we reach it, the better. And we can build up faster as the economy grows."

"If you look at the last 10 years, 4% isn't exactly a lot," he added, noting that the Bush administration spent more when it went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

True, but that's not the issue Romney needs to address. He needs to explain how he plans to balance the federal budget while adding trillions in new military spending.

Romney has been careful all year to avoid being specific about what kind of spending he'd cut — presumably because at some point, he'd have to acknowledge that big budget cuts require reduced spending on Medicare, a dangerous subject to raise with older voters. His plans for a bigger defense budget only make that problem worse.

If Romney wants voters to take his promises seriously, he owes them more details, and soon.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

poor wally... he has exposed himself

he's outta the closet, lol

so wallrus the phony POS banned u from his red pill board?

for what?...

some of these people actually think they are NEO from the Matrix... i guess it's fun pretending... 24/7 internet conspiracy and obama DS

yeah, i missed that one... what a psycho

Here's an issue that hasn't been debated much in the presidential campaign but ought to be: How much should we spend on defense?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-romney-defense-spending-20120624,0,6596765.column

President Obama has proposed keeping the Pentagon budget essentially flat for the next 10 years. Mitt Romney, by contrast, wants to increase defense spending massively — by more than 50% over current levels, according to one estimate. That could mean almost $2 trillion in additional military spending over 10 years.

Romney hasn't actually proposed a defense budget or offered any specific numbers for his military strategy. But he says he wants core defense spending to reach at least 4% of the nation's gross domestic product — a big increase over the current level of about 3.2%. And he says the country needs about 100,000 more active-duty military personnel than the current 1.4 million, even though U.S. forces have left Iraq and have begun to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Romney's argument is that only increased U.S. militarypower can guarantee peace in the world. "A strong America is the best deterrent to war that has ever been invented," he told veterans in San Diego last month. He said his goal was "to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world.''

Of course, the United States already fields the strongest military in the world; U.S. core defense spending — that is, the amount we spend on our military excluding the cost of major wars — is already greater than that of the next 10 countries combined. The real questions are: How much is enough? How much can we afford? And in a time of shrinking federal budgets, how would we pay for it?

Let's start with what's enough. Romney's proposal for a defense budget of at least 4% of GDP isn't outlandish on its face; it's less than Ronald Reagan spent to help end the Cold War. But the number gives military strategists fits because it's based on an arbitrary economic benchmark, not an assessment of global threats.

The same is true of Romney's suspiciously round number of 100,000 for additional military personnel. Where did that number come from? Romney aides won't say, though they speak about the need for an enlarged Navy and Air Force to deploy in East Asia.

But the biggest problem with Romney's defense numbers is that they don't add up with the rest of his platform, which calls for decreasing federal spending overall while also lowering taxes — and, at the same time, balancing the budget.

"My administration will … make the hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts necessary to reduce spending to 20% of GDP by the end of my first term," Romney said in February. "And then, without sacrificing our military superiority, I will balance the budget."

A nice trick if he could pull it off, but it flies in the face of, well, arithmetic.

"It's just not realistic — and that's being generous," said Todd Harrison, an analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It would require a dramatic increase in defense spending to reach these targets. If you combine it with tax cuts and a commitment to avoid cutting Medicare, there's no way to do it without creating a much higher deficit."

Harrison crunched the numbers on Romney's call for a 4%-of-GDP floor on core defense spending. Here's what he came up with:

Using Congressional Budget Office estimates for future GDP, Romney's plan would boost core defense spending to about $945 billion in 2021 — about 53% more than the $618 billion proposed in Obama's defense plan for that year.

One has to wonder, Harrison said, "if this is just a talking point, and if they have actually looked at these numbers themselves."

I asked a Romney advisor who should know: Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon's chief financial officer in the administration ofGeorge W. Bush. Zakheim said Romney was serious about the goal but hasn't specified a date for reaching it — and as a result, no specific spending forecast is possible.

"It is a target," he said. "The sooner we reach it, the better. And we can build up faster as the economy grows."

"If you look at the last 10 years, 4% isn't exactly a lot," he added, noting that the Bush administration spent more when it went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

True, but that's not the issue Romney needs to address. He needs to explain how he plans to balance the federal budget while adding trillions in new military spending.

Romney has been careful all year to avoid being specific about what kind of spending he'd cut — presumably because at some point, he'd have to acknowledge that big budget cuts require reduced spending on Medicare, a dangerous subject to raise with older voters. His plans for a bigger defense budget only make that problem worse.

If Romney wants voters to take his promises seriously, he owes them more details, and soon.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

so you will be voting for Romney who will double the Pentagon budget?

congratulations... you will vote for $2 Trillion tax dollars for increased warmongering

Obama's budget does not increase the war machine

this is what a partisan dumbfuck you are

congratulations...