Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1407.1 | 3.6 | 0.26% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2429.5 | -0.9 | -0.04% |
| Oil (WTI) | 94.65 | 0.3 | 0.34% |
| LIBOR | 0.434 | -0.001 | -0.23% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.72 | 0.077 | 0.09% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.81% | -0.01% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 190.4 | 0.3 |
Stocks are ticking higher this morning in spite of earnings misses by Wal Mart and Sears and some disappointing housing data. Bonds are more or less flat, while MBS are up a tick or two.
Weekly Initial Jobless Claims came in at 366k, more or less in line with expectations and recent history. Housing starts were disappointing at 746k, but an upside surprise in building permits offset that. Housing starts are recovering, but we are still running at half our historical rate, and have averaged a couple hundred units below average over the last 10 years.
Looks like Corzine is going to skate..
The backup in yields over the last few weeks has been dramatic (a range of 50 basis points or so). How have mortgages fared? Actually, MBS have held up better than long bonds over the past month or so. Since they underperformed on the the way up, they are outperforming on the way down. Here is a chart of both securities indexed over the past month: Note: These are NOT bond prices, they are indices.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
“Mr. Corzine, in a bid to rebuild his image and engage his passion for trading, is weighing whether to start a hedge fund, according to people with knowledge of his plans. He is currently trading with his family’s wealth.”
I would guess that would not include the ex-wife, nor the ex-lover who took him to the cleaners. Mom and Pop may really need that Social Security after all.
LikeLike
I have surfed the media for the idea that the 10 year moving back over 1.8 is good news, but basically in vain except for CNBC. Perhaps they are waiting for 2.0 or perhaps the media dosn’t understand that you simply can’t have an improving economy AND the lowest interest rates in our history at the same time, no matter what the Fed does.
LikeLike
One part of the FB lockup expires today, so there will be a hit. I’m guessing it falls into the mid-teens perhaps before it makes any progress again.
LikeLike
From Greg’s usually wrong column (whenever he talks economics):
“The Romney camp continues to claim Obama “raided” Medicare for $716 billion to pay for Obamacare, casting Obama as the real threat to Medicare and to seniors. But those savings are wrung from providers, not benefits, and Obamacare lowers costs for the very same seniors Romney and Ryan are pretending to defend from the alleged “cuts” to Medicare.
Some news organizations are beginning to subject the Romney/Ryan Medicare claims to serious scrutiny. The Associated Press has a great piece today detailing that Romney’s vow to undo those savings would actually make the program insolvent faster. As the AP piece demonstrates, the Romney position is completely untenable.”
Yes and no
All of this is based on one presupposition that so far I have not seen addressed, namely, that the medical profession is captive to Medicare.
In most free markets, the consumer has a right to offer lower payments and the provider has a right to refuse. In order for this to work, we would have to assume that health care delivery is not a free market and thus cannot refuse.
If this is so, why has Congress waived the automatic budgetary cuts to Medicare providers that have been law for what is it ten years straight now? The only possibility is that the rationale for doing so was incorrect then or the rationale used by the Obama adminsitration is incorrect now.
LikeLike
Don Juan, there are two funny money points here. I think you and NoVAH will agree.
1] BHO was talking about cuts to providers, which your correct recitation of history would indicate is illusory.
2] PDR’s budget cut bennies, which WMR now disavows. This thumb drive will self destruct in five seconds.
Greg is not interested in actual policy during the heat of the campaign, but only in urging on his mount.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 16, 2012 at 8:15 am said:
…
Greg is not interested in actual policy
during the heat of the campaign, but only in urging on his mount.”Corrected.
If you want policy, go to Ezra’s blog.
MiA: Ha! I accept the correction.
LikeLike
mark:
I believe that doctors steer business to particular hospitals, just like real estate agents steer business to home inspectors. So if you hurt a hospital, even if you don’t hurt doctors themselves, you almost certainly drive business away, except in areas of very limited hospital beds.
I’m not sure whether your post was in agreement with that or not.
LikeLike
I’m not sure whether your post was in agreement with that or not
I hadn’t thought about it. I know there is a steering effect, but it is so overlain with differing objectives.
1] Whether the MD has staff privileges
2] Whether the hospital is in network for the patient [this will usually overlap #1, but not be identical, in a large city].
3] Whether the hospital has a specialty congruent with the patient’s need
4] How soon a bed is available
So, assuming #1 is in the mutual financial interest of MD and hospital, how will that be affected by the proposed BHO cuts?
LikeLike
I have a question. I’ve been working my way through a long series of posts from a single author with lots of references on climate change. I’m finding it fascinating so far but I’m not finished yet. Is this a topic of interest here or is it too much of a left wing issue to generate any dialogue? I would consider working on a post sometime in the next few weeks but don’t want to put much work into it if there’s no interest.
Another question, anyone have an opinion on Tulane University?
LikeLike
lms:
Is this a topic of interest here?
Probably, but I’d suggest you just post it and we’ll find out.
LikeLike
banned:
If this is so, why has Congress waived the automatic budgetary cuts to Medicare providers that have been law for what is it ten years straight now? The only possibility is that the rationale for doing so was incorrect then or the rationale used by the Obama adminsitration is incorrect now.
Obviously, nova is the expert here, but my understanding is that the formula for payment rates is based on economic growth. So, when the economy tanked in 2001-2, payment rates should have gone down, but the docs revolted. Since then, Congress has just been kicking the can down the road by passing the “fix”. Congress needs to get rid of the formula, but that would cost money and nobody wants to figure out where that money would come from. I’m sure MedPAC has thought up alternatives already.
LikeLike
Mike
They have been waived every year since 2002
LikeLike
mark:
we need more expertise than I possess on this. I know for instance the ACA has a hospital payment formula that takes into account patient care results. Of course hospitals in poorer areas always have worse results than those in richer areas, so it seems to me that as written the ACA has a negative reinforcement cycle built in that too will have to be waived down the road, just like the doc fix.
LikeLike
mark:
we need more expertise than I possess on this.
Or I. What you suggest about the performance standards and the unintended possible consequences and the potential of more “waivers” all makes sense to me, but we should get Novah to tell us to watch for.
LikeLike
Of course hospitals in poorer areas always have worse results than those in richer areas, so it seems to me that as written the ACA has a negative reinforcement cycle built in that too will have to be waived down the road, just like the doc fix.
NoVa can probably give specific examples of this and I probably should know the answers (but presently I am more employment lawyer than health care lawyer) but the programs that base payment on quality generally have a risk adjustment based on the population served by the hospital. They do this in other ways too, through the Disproportiante Share Hospital (DSH, said like “dish) adjustments for hospitals that serve a high proporiton of inidigent patients. But banned’s point gets at an inherent tension in many of these programs. There will always be a hospital that has the highest readmission rate or has the worst quality rating by whatever measure an insurer uses. And unpacking why that is the case is not always easy. This is also true in some of the governmental efforts aimed at cracking down on fraud. Thanks to electronic bills and electronic health records, the government can quickly, easily and cheaply identify outliers. However, there will always be a doctor who makes the most on Medicare. The reason will not always be fraud. Smart criminals may also be able to hide in the middle of the pack and avoid getting noticed.
NoVa also indirectly addressed this concern when he discussed doctors expressing concern over being held responsible for the bad health decisision for non-compliance of their patients. Maybe a readmission is the physician’s fault. Maybe the patient ignored instructions or maybe they are too poor to follow the instructions etc.
I hope that helps.
LikeLike
banned:
I know, that’s what I meant by “Since then, Congress has just been kicking the can down the road by passing the “fix”. “
LikeLike
scott and brent
unlike Waiting For Godot has the time to short Treasuries finally arrived?
LikeLike
banned:
I’m still on my mandatory two-weeker, so no involvement with the markets at all. (Hence all the time on my hands to piss people off.) But I have the sense the time has not yet arrived. United States of Japan, baby.
LikeLike
mike:
I know the 700 billion in cuts are supposed to be in “excess” payments, but the program they were cut from was supposed to save money not make excess payments
I think when it comes to health care delivery, nobody really has a handle on how the system works, but the terminology makes those who have mastered it look very smart, like the legal profession.
LikeLike
ok guys time to show off, what do you think?
“Muni Bonds Not as Safe as Thought”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48688870
LikeLike
banned:
“Excess” payment cuts are just limiting the growth of payments to providers, I think.
A couple of links:
Comparison of Medicare provisions in debt reduction proposals. (from KFF)
Quality of health care delivery after BBA in 1997. (from Wonkblog)
LikeLike
“Apple in Talks With Cable TV Networks Over Set-Top Box: Report”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686107
The more I read about this project, the more I’m expecting either the IPod or the Zune, with nothing in between
LikeLike
I love my Apple TV. I have two (most recent generation that does 1080p and the previous one) and it has the best interface available.
The iPad is becoming an excellent universal remote as well, as more consumer electronics equipment becomes network integrated.
LikeLike
mark:
If he thinks tending to sick people is more important than what he does here . . .
LikeLike
everybody
I haven’t seen it anywhere, but on CNBC this morning they were alluding to a proposal from somewhere that we should simply “forgive our own debt” basically retire all the Treasuries that the government holds. It sounds like a great piece to make fun of but I can’t find it. Anybody know what they were talking about?
LikeLike
Destroying the SS Trust Fund all at once?
LikeLike
Mint $trillion dollar coins?
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 16, 2012 at 10:13 am said:
Destroying the SS Trust Fund all at once?”
Or cease with the ongoing fiction that there actually is a Trust Fund.
LikeLike
Or cease with the ongoing fiction that there actually is a Trust Fund.
If the pixels on the computer say it exists, it exists. That is the nature of fiat currency and fiat obligations.
Because anything other than barter is based on fiat – gold standard included – as long as those pixels are believed by furriners buying Treasuries there is a Trust Fund.
LikeLike
This is probably the best that I’ve seen Romney make his case:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/mitt-romney-interview/
LikeLike
unlike Waiting For Godot has the time to short Treasuries finally arrived?
Europe has been off the front page for a while and I think people may be adjusting their QEIII assumptions. Has anything changed in Europe from a month ago when rates went below 1.4% overnight? Not IMO.
Would not be inclined to chase it.
LikeLike
Mark,
Isn’t that fiction designed to dupe American’s not foreigners? SS and Medicare take money from those working and give it to retirees. There is no account with savings accumulating in it, it requires current workers, er, working to provide a retiree their benefits. I think most “furriners” who are buying US debt understand completely what they are buying, and they are buying the fact that virtually every American does not understand that the trust fund is, always has been and always will be a fiction.
It would be a way to get our financial house in order if we were to take the resources used in, say, convincing Americans to buy crappy “energy saver” bulbs to (snicker) “save the planet” and instead educate them on the ponzi/pyramid scheme-like nature of SS and Medicare. Then, we might actually be able to reform it (and then later dismantle it. I know, I know, baby steps.).
LikeLike
George, I don’t think there is any “duping” involved. SS can only invest in Treasuries. The borrowed funds were spent first on WW2. But they were still promised to be paid back, which is done when the money is paid out to the beneficiary. The T still owes SS enough to keep Medicare from directly using income tax money until 2017, and it still owes enough to let OAB not use income tax money until 203?. But the payroll tax must be raised, or the benefit lowered, as Scott says, to keep this from being directly funded by income taxes. Now, if we get past the boomers, we get a demographic break after that.
My gripe is with Medicaid which is directly deficit financed.
LikeLike
“but the terminology makes those who have mastered it look very smart, like the legal profession.”
WHO TOLD YOU THAT!
LikeLike
Just heard a rumor that Obama and Biden had a private lunch and he is out, hillary is in.
LikeLike
Mike is right. for awhile, the SGR formula spit out annual positive updates. there was even a year or so of 10%. and there was much rejoicing.
but then, a negative. and the docs revolted. so cancel the “negative update” and replace it with a modest positive one. these negatives are summed together together to arrive at what the “permanent” doc fix is.
MedPAC has addressed this. one of the commissioners floated the idea of just ignoring it. basically, the SGR was a target, we missed the target, so let’s not worry about the cost of retroactively reaching that target (currently $300 billion over 10 i think, would have to check), and just move on.
medpac letter on the issue to congress and some recommendations at http://www.medpac.gov/documents/10142011_medpac_sgr_letter.pdf
LikeLike
ash and nova
thanks
LikeLike
Brent
Just heard a rumor that Obama and Biden had a private lunch and he is out, hillary is in.
Wow, if that’s true it would be a game changer IMO.
LikeLike
lms/Brent:
Wow, if that’s true it would be a game changer IMO.
If that happens, Obama’s toast. Who in their right mind would vote for him without that foreign policy guru with 36 years of congressional experience backing him up? 🙂
LikeLike
” Smart criminals may also be able to hide in the middle of the pack and avoid getting noticed.”
the only ones that are getting caught are the exceptionally greedy/stupid. you don’t bill for 1,000 customized power wheelchairs in rural Texas. you bill for 2 and move on.
the most insidious fraud I’ve come across is pop-up clinics that are infusing AIDS patients with saline instead of the medicine.
LikeLike
scott and mark:
Been musing over that story about muni bonds. Is it possible, now remember I’m an equities guy first last and always, is it possible that in addition to theere being a bond bubble, that we may have some form of a ratings and or insurance problem related to munis and the larger bond community coming?
LikeLike
banned:
is it possible that in addition to theere being a bond bubble, that we may have some form of a ratings and or insurance problem related to munis and the larger bond community coming?
I’m not all that plugged into the muni market, but I don’t get the impression that there is some muni craze going on driving demand to unrealistic levels. I suspect that most investors have a good idea about the credit quality of the munis they are investing in, and yields will reflect the risks fairly well (on a relative level). I’d also guess that the tax exemption has a lot to do with demand for munis as well, entirely apart from credit quality concerns.
On insurance, again, I don’t really know that much about muni bond insurers, but my understanding is that they ran a fairly good and safe business for years until some of them got into insuring other bonds (ie MBS), which is what really burned them in ’08. I think those that survived are both smarter and doing fine.
LikeLike
george
the SS trust is no more fictional than the options I lose money on daily, er that didn’t quite come out right!
LikeLike
@jnc — regarding apply TV.
ever use Plex? i’ have a mac mini hooked to my TV and use Plex as my interface.
LikeLike
Wow, if that’s true it would be a game changer IMO.
Don’t know why she would do it. obama is on thin ice with the economy as bad as it is, and even if he wins, she is the heir apparent in 2016 anyway. Don’t see what that would buy her.
Also, if you were obama would you want the Clintons looking over your shoulder?
LikeLike
nova:
Thanks for the link to the MedPAC letter.
and there was much rejoicing.
Yay!
LikeLike
scott
I’m sure that was a sarcasm alert! My post from yesterday
“It turns out the president is a hell of a lot smarter than I thought,” Biden told a reporter in 2010.’
Somehow I doubt Obama said the same thing.
“Tasked by Obama to manage the end of the Iraq war, Biden made eight trips there in three years and helped forge the 2010 power-sharing agreement — since frayed nearly to the breaking point — that left Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in office.
“I’ve never seen anyone go into a room where there are disparate views and come out with everyone moving in the same direction,” said former senator Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a longtime Biden adviser. In Iraq, Biden “went over there, and he knew the Kurds and he knew Maliki, and he was able to negotiate the whole thing.”
So he failed in the Iraq agreement, (you’ll recall Maliki issued arrest warrants for his vice-president last year) and he failed to convince the president not to escalate in Afghanistan, and he was against the Persian Gulf War , but voted for the Iraqi War and advised Obama not to do the Bin Laden raid.
It’s easy to see why they brought him aboard for his foreign policy expertise!
LikeLike
banned:
I’m sure that was a sarcasm alert!
Absolutely. If for no other reason, the choice of Biden should have dispelled the widespread rumors in ’08 of Obama’s unparalleled intellect and good judgement.
LikeLike
i can’t imagine it would be true. to make a move like that — their internals must look like absolute shit.
LikeLike
mike — if you really want to dig into this, check out the briefs and transcripts for the Jan 2012 and the April 2011 medpac meetings. very long discussions on SGR and fixes. the phrase “accounting fiction” is in there a few times, IIRC.
the transcripts have a table of contents, you can can scroll to the right section.
http://www.medpac.gov/meetings.cfm
LikeLike
“I’m not all that plugged into the muni market, but I don’t get the impression that there is some muni craze going on driving demand to unrealistic levels.”
If taxes go up Jan 1, wouldn’t the tax break in munis become more valuable vis a vis other taxable debt? That could be the trade..
LikeLike
Brent:
If taxes go up Jan 1, wouldn’t the tax break in munis become more valuable vis a vis other taxable debt? That could be the trade..
Indeed. The tax exemption is definitely a big factor in demand for munis.
LikeLike
wouldn’t the tax break in munis become more valuable
Brent, my wife is torn between that view and the fear that Munis will lose their exemption.
Also, the source of the HRC rumor appears to have been SHP.
LikeLike
mark:
Also, the source of the HRC rumor appears to have been SHP.
Where do you see that? I read that both Palin and McCain made statements suggesting that Obama should replace Biden with Hillary, but not that either started the rumor that it was happening, which would surprise me.
My guess (really, just a guess) is that it began with the Weekly Standard.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 16, 2012 at 11:40 am said:
George, I don’t think there is any “duping” involved. SS can only invest in Treasuries. The borrowed funds were spent first on WW2. But they were still promised to be paid back, which is done when the money is paid out to the beneficiary. The T still owes SS enough to keep Medicare from directly using income tax money until 2017, and it still owes enough to let OAB not use income tax money until 203?.”
I believe SS went cash negative last year or the year before. The “temporary” payroll tax cut accelerated that date.
LikeLike
If this report is accurate, it appears that Romney’s approach to “tax reform” is very similar to President Obama’s: i.e. eliminate certain deductions for high earners, but leave them for everyone else.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/15/11216845-romney-offers-policy-details-at-closed-door-fundraiser?lite
Not what I would consider tax simplification. If you are going to eliminate the deduct-ability of 2nd home mortgages, eliminate them across the board.
LikeLike
jnc:
“I believe SS went cash negative last year or the year before. The “temporary” payroll tax cut accelerated that date.”
that was for the year an operating deficit, not an overall balance sheet one. In addition to the payroll tax problem there was of course the historically low interest rates on the T’s that were added each month.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm said:
jnc:
“I believe SS went cash negative last year or the year before. The “temporary” payroll tax cut accelerated that date.”
that was for the year an operating deficit, not an overall balance sheet one. In addition to the payroll tax problem there was of course the historically low interest rates on the T’s that were added each month.”
By overall balance sheet one you mean one that counts Treasuries as assets to be redeemed?
My understanding is that Social Security cash out exceeded cash in either last year or the one before that for the first time. It was ahead of schedule by a few years. Going forward, Social Security will contribute to, rather than help to mask, the overall Federal deficit.
Edit:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/II_A_highlights.html
My impression from the report is that if you count interest on Treasuries, it’s still taking in more than it’s paying out, but that interest is funded by other taxes hence the contribution to the deficit.
MiA notes that would mean the matter should be attended to right now.
LikeLike
yes, they still are a net positive overall but they are currently operating at a deficit on an annual basis for the first time in their history
LikeLike
as far as the future, that depends on two things we have discussed, three really Treasury interest rates, the end of the payroll tax cuts, or not and the unemployment rate.
Given those I don’t see how anybody can stand on solid ground making projections right now.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm said:
as far as the future, that depends on two things we have discussed, three really Treasury interest rates, the end of the payroll tax cuts, or not and the unemployment rate.
Given those I don’t see how anybody can stand on solid ground making projections right now.”
You make conservative projections based on current trends, and then if things turn out better than expected you are happily surprised.
Doing otherwise has lead or will lead to the demise of many a pension fund.
LikeLike
“Stocks took another leg higher after German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her support for ECB President Mario Draghi’s strategy to help the euro zone during her visit to Canada, where she held talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the ongoing sovereign debt crisis”
see our problem here on this board is that we all seem to still consider economics and finance a matter of actual dollars and cents. In the “real world” they know that what you say is far more important than what you do!
LikeLike
Mark, SHP?
MiA: Sarah H. Palin.
LikeLike
OT – Have any of you read “Long Sunset” by Anthony Montague-Brown? These personal reminisces of WSC’s last private secretary are more entertaining insights into Churchill than I have ever read before, and I have read a lot by and about him.
LikeLike
jnc:
Don’t get me started on GM now
LikeLike
Benen is still selling his lies that the majority of Americans pay a tax rate greater than 14%:
“Romney may not understand this, but 13 percent isn’t a tax burden worth bragging about. Most of the middle class are not, by definition, multi multi-millionaires with car elevators, and they’re paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than Romney is. (Romney, if elected, intends to make sure he and his wealthy buddies continue to pay less than working people.)”
LikeLike
Benen is still selling his lies that the majority of Americans pay a tax rate greater than 14%:
Surely hundreds have been correcting him.
How does he respond? By folding in payroll tax?
LikeLike
is benen including payroll taxes in that. seems like it’s always both ways with those. when it’s tax burden, they’re regressive. when its time to cut benefits, they’re premiums.
LikeLike
The way he phrases it appears so:
“paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than Romney is”
Still not sure if that’s accurate, but it partially depends on how you count the employer portion of FICA.
LikeLike
Great quote from Ezra Klein:
“In my experience, you’re actually getting a more serious conversation over the issues if you listen directly to the two campaigns than if you’re reading about the campaign as filtered through much of the media. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/were-having-a-serious-conversation-over-the-issues/
LikeLike
nova
He doesn’t have any idea! LOL One person said her effective rate was 26% i believe last time and I sent her a snarky reply that she should stop being a single childless renter who makes a quarter of a million a year.
And there are those who say I have no people skills
LikeLike
I laughed at this, but then I realized that I know someone who meets those criteria and not sure wher eyou were posting but it very well could have been her.
LikeLike
Ezra always like to make the case that EVERY tax you pay should be included, even sales taxes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-taxes-americans-really-pay-in-two-graphs/2012/04/16/gIQA6o4yLT_blog.html
LikeLike
mark
he doesn’t respond anymore than Greg would. Ezra being the wonk that he is tries to rationalize by including things like sales taxes in the “total” effective tax rate.
LikeLike
I figured my effective rate with this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577181593961027260.html
and I had a slightly higher effective rate than Mitt. but he paid 21 million in taxes. if anyone should be pissed, it’s him, not me.
or rather, we both paid too much.
LikeLike
Mitt… paid 21 million in taxes.
Don’t think so.
LikeLike
whoop. mark’s right. in transposed the numbers. that calculator has about $3 million in taxes
LikeLike
I still maintain that as a matter of equity/fairness (which underlies all discussions about who pays how much), it makes no sense whatsoever to measure tax payments to the government relative to income. The disparity between my income and Warren Buffets has nothing whatsoever to do with the goods and services the government provides, so there is no equitable argument to be made which leads to the conclusion that because he makes more money, he should pay more taxes even in flat dollars, much less than that he should pay a higher percentage of his income.
So frankly Romney’s tax rate is wholly irrelevant to me. I’d wager that he has paid more taxes in the last 10 years than most people will ever pay in their lives. Any charge that he hasn’t paid his “fair share” is empty of content.
LikeLike
nova:
stop doing your own taxes you’re too rich for that
LikeLike
Banned, are you having problems posting comments to Ezra’s blog today? It’s eaten two of mine.
LikeLike
i thought they just wouldn’t accept my use of the word “fetish”. You didn’t use it too by any chance?
LikeLike
you’re right banned. but i’m like george constanza: Parking at a garage is like going to a prostitute. Why pay for it when you can apply yourself, and then may be you can get it for free.
LikeLike
“Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño said Thursday there is credible fear that if Assange is sent to Sweden, he could subsequently be extradited to the United States, where he could be charged with espionage and treason.
In the United States, there are no guarantees that Assange would receive a fair trial or that he wouldn’t be subject to a military or secret tribunal, Patiño added.”
Thank YOU Presidents Bush and Obama. Twelve years ago this would have been laughed at as an absurdity if brought up at all. Now, who can say it isn’t ture?
LikeLike
banned:
Thank YOU Presidents Bush and Obama. Twelve years ago this would have been laughed at as an absurdity if brought up at all. Now, who can say it isn’t ture?
It is true only to the extent that no such “guarantees” exist anywhere in the world. But ignoring that qualification, I’m happy to say it isn’t true. It is an absurdity and should be laughed at.
LikeLike
Nope. It was a long discussion about how Ken Rogoff is a bad example to use when arguing for Keynesian stimulus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says-part-ii/
My original comment posted, but not my follow up responses to other commenters.
LikeLike
nova”
Just don’t be like Chad Ochocinco and leave the parking garage receipt in your car.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm said:
Thank YOU Presidents Bush and Obama. Twelve years ago this would have been laughed at as an absurdity if brought up at all. Now, who can say it isn’t true?”
Now we know how other countries feel when we get moralistic towards them.
He should have twisted the knife and said something about free speech and transparency as well, along with condemning extra judicial killings.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 16, 2012 at 2:17 pm said:
I still maintain that as a matter of equity/fairness (which underlies all discussions about who pays how much), it makes no sense whatsoever to measure tax payments to the government relative to income. The disparity between my income and Warren Buffets has nothing whatsoever to do with the goods and services the government provides, so there is no equitable argument to be made which leads to the conclusion that because he makes more money, he should pay more taxes even in flat dollars, much less than that he should pay a higher percentage of his income.”
What I find annoying is the “goods and services” argument being trotted out via the whole roads and schools discussion along with Obama’s version of “You didn’t build that” to justify tax increases that are solely for income redistribution either directly or through provision of a private good (i.e. health insurance) to individuals selected for government subsidies.
Step one is to win the argument that income/wealth redistribution is an illegitimate purpose of government. I don’t really see anyone but the libertarians making this argument.
LikeLike
jnc:
I don’t really see anyone but the libertarians making this argument.
Regrettably I think you are right. What does Johnson have to say about it?
LikeLike
jnc:
wonkblog is fixed
LikeLike
“I don’t really see anyone but the libertarians making this argument.”
And it’s a widely popular position to take.
LikeLike
scott
you better tell DOJ because they are appealing a case just last week when a judge said the same thing you did
http://www.fedsocblog.com/blog/doj_appeals_ruling_against_military_detention_law/
LikeLike
banned:
you better tell DOJ
I’m at the beach just now. I’ll call them tomorrow.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm said:
“It is an absurdity and should be laughed at.”
What’s absurd and should be laughed at is President Obama’s attempt to draw a distinction between his support of Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers and his administration’s treatment of Bradley Manning.
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/23/manning_10/
LikeLike
jnc:
What’s absurd and should be laughed at is President Obama’s attempt to draw a distinction between his support of Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers and his administration’s treatment of Bradley Manning.
Do you think Ellsberg should have been treated like Manning, or vice-versa?
LikeLike
Furtthermore if you read my link, Ecuador was making exactly the same argument that DOJ is using, that he COULD be detained or tried.
Welcome to Obama’s America!
LikeLike
scott :
Are there black helicopters flying overhead? Hurry man look up, they may have found us all.
LikeLike
banned:
No black helicopters, but several parasails. Not my cup of tea, particularly after this mornings news.
LikeLike
oh that’s awful, scott.
on that note, i’m off for the day.
LikeLike
nova:
oh that’s awful, scott.
Horrible. I’m not much of one for heights to start with, and then I saw that on the news this morning. My distaste was confirmed. Unimaginable.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 16, 2012 at 2:55 pm said:
Do you think Ellsberg should have been treated like Manning, or vice-versa?”
Neither. I’d have put both on trial in Federal Court. I believe that Manning’s current conditions of detention are unnecessarily harsh and are designed as punishment.
Were I President, I’d actually give serious consideration to a pardon or commutation.
However, you can’t maintain that Ellsberg is a hero and Manning a villain for the exact same action.
LikeLike
jnc:
However, you can’t maintain that Ellsberg is a hero and Manning a villain for the exact same action.
Agreed.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm said:
jnc:
I don’t really see anyone but the libertarians making this argument.
Regrettably I think you are right. What does Johnson have to say about it?”
Johnson’s for the Fair Tax which replaces the entire income tax system, including FICA and corporate with a 23% national sales tax. I don’t believe he makes the statement about redistribution directly.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm said: Edit Comment
jnc:
However, you can’t maintain that Ellsberg is a hero and Manning a villain for the exact same action.
Agreed.”
I also don’t believe that under the First Amendment you can draw a cogent distinction between a New York Times reporter publishing “authorized” leaks of classified national security information and Julian Assange publishing unauthorized leaks of classified national security information. The First Amendment does not give reporters of major news corporations special privileges above and beyond those of the rest of the citizenry.
LikeLike
Manning as a member of the miltary had voluntarily given up rights which as a civilian he would otherwise posssess. He may not have REALIZED at the time he was joining but he was
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm said:
Manning as a member of the miltary had voluntarily given up rights which as a civilian he would otherwise posssess. He may not have REALIZED at the time he was joining but he was”
That doesn’t mean he should be stripped naked and held in solitary. Also, Ellsberg worked for the Pentagon and also gave up rights as a DoD employee.
LikeLike
jnc:
but he did not subject himself to the UCMJ.
btw, not talking about the conditions of his confinement, but about the system of justice he entered mainly
LikeLike
An intereting article from Victor Davis Hanson about California. One shocking (to me, at least) claim that he makes is that one-third of all welfare recipients in the US reside in California. I haven’t been able to confirm that, but I did find the claim repeated in places varying from local California newspapers to the LA Times to the WSJ. This from a state that comprises roughly 12% of the total US population. It was also repeatedly claimed that CA is the only state with more than 3% of it’s population on welfare.
The question occurs to me: What is it about California that either attracts or creates welfare cases in such greater numbers than the rest of the country?
LikeLike
The next step in “You didn’t build that” is apparently “You don’t own that”.
Of course this begs the question that if the author, and presumably other neighbors have been “rescued by Josie and Steve more than once” why they couldn’t collectively raise the “few thousand dollars” that it took to complete the purchase. Apparently proletariat solidarity only goes so far.
LikeLike
jnc (from the link):
But I fear that the more affluent this area becomes, neighbors — people who look out for each other — will become fewer and farther between.
Right, because as everyone knows, wealthy people don’t care about anyone but themselves. The casualness with which such bigoted thinking is so easily passed along never ceases to amaze me.
Note to jnc: I just re-read this and realized it might sound like I am slamming you for having “passed along” this piece of bigotry. That is not at all what I meant. I was criticizing the person who actually said it, not you. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
LikeLike
jnc:
I just wanted to make sure you saw the clarification in my poorly worded comment from last night.
LikeLike
Worth noting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-rules-expose-bigger-funding-gaps-for-public-pensions/2012/08/16/c183fe1a-d507-11e1-b2d5-2419d227d8b0_story.html?hpid=z2
LikeLike
CA is one of the few states that supports children until 18 even if their parents are off the welfare rolls.
LikeLike
lms:
CA is one of the few state that supports children until 18 even if their parents are off the welfare rolls.
This National Review article makes the same point.
LikeLike
jnc’s link about ownership reminded me of this slate article on nationalizing facebook. the kicker here is the author is concern that facebook is not protecting privacy rights that the the government will do a better job.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/08/facebook_should_be_nationalized_to_protect_user_rights_.html
LikeLike
nova:
Thanks for the MedPac link. I’ll delve into it when I get the chance. As an aside, some of the docs I work with are amazingly uninformed about this, even though they treat (bill) Medicare patients.
LikeLike
NoVA–
While it would be darn near impossible to do a worse job than FB at protecting privacy, this would seem to be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I have a FB account but hardly ever use it other than to read what my friends have posted. And the occasional crow about a football win. 🙂
LikeLike
“novahockey, on August 17, 2012 at 6:56 am said:
jnc’s link about ownership reminded me of this slate article on nationalizing facebook. the kicker here is the author is concern that facebook is not protecting privacy rights that the the government will do a better job.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/08/facebook_should_be_nationalized_to_protect_user_rights_.html”
This is so absurd it’s hard to know where to begin, but I’ll start with the premise that turning over the social networking data to the same government that runs the NSA will enhance privacy protection for the users.
LikeLike
When it comes to privacy and Facebook, how about just keeping in mind that if you want something kept private, don’t post it on the Internet.
LikeLike
Also, for all the absurdity of the San Francisco article, New York’s rent control laws, which allows tenants to inherit a property right for rent control on someone else’s property are truly Kafkaesque.
And the SCOTUS rejected the case:
http://www.fedsocblog.com/blog/scotus_refuses_to_hear_nyc_rent_control_case/
LikeLike
IIRC, rent control in NYC was originally for police, firefighters, teachers, and nurses to permit them to live near their work and induce them to work in the city.
Thus the landlord was made to subsidize the City budget for public employees. The better remedy would have been to authorize a stipend for the COLA differential of living in the City and to have paid for it honestly through the taxing authority, rather than burdening specific property owners with the general obligation.
My great-uncle was a NYC cop and lived in rent controlled housing his entire life, as did his widow. Their unit was not “passed on” to anyone, so I had no idea this burden was one that could violate the Rule against Perpetuities.
LikeLike
mark:
IIRC, rent control in NYC was originally for police, firefighters, teachers, and nurses to permit them to live near their work and induce them to work in the city.
According to wikipedia, NYC rent control began as just a part of FDR’s national price controls in 1943 and continued to be federally regulated until 1950. Then the state of New York took control of regulation until 1962, at which point the city itself began to regulate. There is no mention of it ever being designed just for public sector workers. From the start it seems to have applied to a wide array of citizens, and indeed was part of a program that applied nationwide to everyone.
LikeLike
I did not know that and my misinformation probably came from my uncle, Scott.
As to the denial of Harmon’s petition by the Supremes, it appears to have been unanimous. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-496.htm
Mike’s reply @ 9:26 AM MDT is more accurate. No Justice wanted to write why s/he would have taken the case.
LikeLike
jnc:
And the SCOTUS rejected the case:
Is there any way to find out who voted against hearing the case?
LikeLike
if you want something kept private, don’t post it on the Internet.
Oh, c’mon, jnc, where’s the fun in that??
I’ve been harping on this with my nephews and niece ever since I got on FB and friended them (at the time all of them between the ages of 14 and 23) and saw what they were putting out there. It still shocks me what some people my age will post on their FB pages.
Of course, I have a healthy dose of paranoia having been a military officer and having been interviewed by an NSA agent once (for a security violation that I reported, not something I did–and it was still the single scariest thing that I did while on active duty).
LikeLike
The first thing I see happening if Facebook is nationalized is everyone quitting Facebook for an alternative.
LikeLike
If FB were nationalized, who do you think would get the better of the bargain in the negotiations or from the jury? My bet would be on the lucky stockholders, not the taxpayers holding the [empty] bag. As you say, JNC, the immediate need for a private version would appear, when the nationalized version did not accept advertising or accommodate new technology, and nationalized FB would fail.
I do not know who would have posed such a ridiculous idea. Someone too young to recall that our telco system was the envy of the world precisely b/c it was incomparably better than nationalized telco systems?
BTW, while I think nationalization is almost always a bad idea, I am more kindly disposed toward regulating natural monopolies. See my traditional telco example.
Of course, it is the irony of trusting privacy to the government that is most breathtaking, as some have already said.
LikeLike
Just curious, did anybody over at PL claim the FRC shooting was a false flag operation / Reich-stag fire?
LikeLike
george:
that’s been a common internet theme in general just like 9/11
LikeLike
FB doesn’t want to protect your privacy. It’s difficult to exploit you and protect you at the same time. Let’s call that Gary Coleman Syndrome.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on August 17, 2012 at 8:47 am said:
Just curious, did anybody over at PL claim the FRC shooting was a false flag operation / Reich-stag fire?”
Not that I’ve seen. Mostly arguments over “false equivalence”, why no post from Greg on the subject given his previous ones on gun control, etc.
QB is over there fighting the good fight, or tilting at windmills depending on your perspective.
My own take is that the body count wasn’t high enough to attract media attention. Always remember Jon Stewart’s observation:
“The bias of the mainstream media is towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0611/Jon_Stewart_Press_biased_towards_.html
LikeLike
Oh my.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/16/romneys-bain-saved-site-of-obamas-first-kiss/
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 17, 2012 at 8:49 am said:
My great-uncle was a NYC cop and lived in rent controlled housing his entire life, as did his widow. Their unit was not “passed on” to anyone, so I had no idea this burden was one that could violate the Rule against Perpetuities.”
It’s way beyond absurd now. You don’t even have to be a family member to inherit the right to a rent controlled apartment, just have an “emotional connection” with the tenant who has since deceased and have lived there for between one and two years.
The next step of course will be the right to sell the rent control property right to someone else.
See also:
$331.76 a month for 1,200-square-foot in Greenwich Village isn’t bad if you can get it.
LikeLike
What did I miss this morning? how come all this talk about nationalizing FB?
LikeLike
If you want to screw with the minds of people who say the government is responsible for creating everything, tell them that the post-Vietnam world was largely invented in the labs of three companies Xerox, Bell Labs and IBM.
I do bring out the worst in some posters.
LikeLike
Greg is being a dumbass again:
“Obama turns clock back on Guantanamo: Today, there will be hearings over new administration rules that would further restrict lawyers’ access to detainees, and Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights sums up the grim truth about Obama’s larger record:
Torture was President Bush’s legacy at Guantanamo. I hope that President Obama’s legacy will not be that he legitimized indefinite detention without charge and made Guantanamo a place where the United States sends Muslim detainees to grow old and die.
Congress no doubt bears a large part of the blame here, but there’s no escaping the fact that Obama has completely failed to live up to his own promises and rhetoric on this front.”
No Greg in this case Congress isn’t even slightly responsible unless you think that the best way to make a twilight prison more American is to move it to the US mainland and conduct Stalinist trials in which even the AG admits an acquittal is not a possibility and would not get anyone released from prison if they were acquitted.
LikeLike
Someone wrote yesterday that B.Manning is not under the UCMJ, but everything I’ve read says he is. Did I read this wrong or is there evidence that he is not being prosecuted under the UCMJ?
LikeLike
Scott:
Is there any way to find out who voted against hearing the case?
The issue is not literally a yes/no vote; it is that 4 Justices have to affirmatively want to hear the case. Clearly, there were not 4 Justices willing to hear the NYC rent control case, so at least 6 didn’t think it was worthwhile. Other than something like Breyer’s dissent in the MT campaign finance case, SCOTUS generally doesn’t say if anyone would have wanted to hear a case.
LikeLike
Mike/Mark:
Clearly, there were not 4 Justices willing to hear the NYC rent control case, so at least 6 didn’t think it was worthwhile.
Thanks. That is disheartening.
LikeLike
Scott, the clash between the property right Fifth Amendment/14thA and the reservation of the police power to the states [10th Amendment, in practice] is nowhere more clear than in the partial takings cases like this one or in the zoning partial takings cases. A recent Fifth Circuit decision, picking up on a Rehnquist dissent, may begin chipping away at the Supremes’ previously confused and reluctant grasp of what is a “taking”, if the case gets to them. I should add that the Fifth really was trying to get around Williamson, not defy it.
http://www.volokh.com/category/property-rights/regulatory-takings/
LikeLike
Mark:
Scott, the clash between the property right Fifth Amendment/14thA and the reservation of the police power to the states [10th Amendment, in practice] is nowhere more clear than in the partial takings cases like this one or in the zoning partial takings cases.
This seems to be another instance of what I wrote about some time ago, ie how conservatism is disadvantaged precisely because it espouses a principled judicial philosophy. A judicial conservative who understands that the Constitution reserves some measure of soveriegnty for the states (a topic, BTW, that we have yet to finish) might well be compelled to rule in favor of liberal policy instituted by a state that would be easily deemed unconstitutional at the federal level. But a judicial liberal who thinks the Constitution is “living” would never be so compelled in the face of a conservative policy instituted by a state. See, for example, the emanations and penumbras that ultimately ground the ridiculous decision in Roe.
BTW, I am not saying that is why conservatives on the court did not want to hear the rent control case, but rent control, and particularly that which can be inherited, seems to me such an obvious violation of the takings clause that I can’t imagine any other possible reason for a judicial conservative to reject the case.
LikeLike
george:
I wrote that Manning was but Ellsberg was not, in response to jnc. Could that be the reference?
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 17, 2012 at 9:13 am said:
mark:
IIRC, rent control in NYC was originally for police, firefighters, teachers, and nurses to permit them to live near their work and induce them to work in the city.
According to wikipedia, NYC rent control began as just a part of FDR’s national price controls in 1943 and continued to be federally regulated until 1950. Then the state of New York took control of regulation until 1962, at which point the city itself began to regulate. There is no mention of it ever being designed just for public sector workers. From the start it seems to have applied to a wide array of citizens, and indeed was part of a program that applied nationwide to everyone.”
“markinaustin, on August 17, 2012 at 9:23 am said:
I did not know that and my misinformation probably came from my uncle, Scott.”
I believe Mark’s comments (presumably from his uncle) referenced the original post World War I program in 1920 which expired, but was then revived.
Also, George Will on this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rent-control-laws-foolish-and-unconstitutional/2012/02/14/gIQAcZvbGR_story.html
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 17, 2012 at 9:20 am said:
jnc:
I just wanted to make sure you saw the clarification in my poorly worded comment from last night.”
I didn’t take it that way at all, but thanks.
As a general rule, I never take comments in this forum as a personal attack, unless they are clearly intended to be one. I can’t recall that ever being the case here.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 17, 2012 at 8:49 am said:
My great-uncle was a NYC cop and lived in rent controlled housing his entire life, as did his widow. Their unit was not “passed on” to anyone, so I had no idea this burden was one that could violate the Rule against Perpetuities.”
That would probably be a lot more tolerable to everyone. It’s the ability to pass along a right to live in some else’s property to your third wife’s adopted nephew’s roommate that’s so galling.
LikeLike
banned,
twas me, I misunderstood your comment.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 17, 2012 at 9:11 am said:
If you want to screw with the minds of people who say the government is responsible for creating everything, tell them that the post-Vietnam world was largely invented in the labs of three companies Xerox, Bell Labs and IBM.
I do bring out the worst in some posters.”
I’d also include DEC – Digital Equipment Corporation, and perhaps HP.
LikeLike
jnc:
I didn’t know them thanks. In truth I’m out of my league when discussing tech as is obvious I’m sure, but depending on where I’m posting, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!
LikeLike
“if you want something kept private, don’t post it on the Internet.”
This is what i think is the dividing line between my generation (X) and the next one. My sister-in-law just doesn’t seem to understand why I don’t have facebook. and she certainly doesn’t get that anything she posts is for public consumption. “but it’s restricted to my friends.” who number in the hundreds. who can then do what they want with it.
LikeLike
new ad from American Crossroads
I knew after Ryan was selected that they would want to make Biden an issue, but this is faster than I expected.
LikeLike
I don’t see anyone successfully making Biden an issue. He’s such a known quality and I have a personally favorable view of the man. I also think he has a pretty decent working relationship with Eric Cantor.
LikeLike
I don’t see anyone successfully making Biden an issue. He’s such a known quality and I have a personally favorable view of the man. I also think he has a pretty decent working relationship with Eric Cantor.
Sums it up for me, too.
LikeLike
What about him is favorable? Likable in a ward heeler way perhaps.
LikeLike
Long history in the Senate, where he was someone who shepherded a lot of bipartisan legislation, back when that was more the norm. In that, he was like McCain, Lugar, and his first contemporaries, Nunn, Rudman, Boren, and Danforth. Lots of senators over the time from 1987-2007 had almost none of their legislation passed. Really.
Some of his initiatives I thought were not so good, but I liked some of them, as well.
He always talked too much. I thought he seemed foolish whenever he tried to examine Supremes nominees. However, the nominees are all such better lawyers than the Senators that they generally run rings around the Judiciary Committee.
I think he has been a serviceable VP and during 2009 he was able to work with the Rs in Congress, many of whom were his friends. I also think the negotiation in Iraq went as well as it could for the US interests and he should be lauded for it, not faulted because the parties still hated each other after they came to terms, at least temporarily. His federation idea mirrored the actual Iraq constitution of 1922? and had some historical basis – he did not make it up out of his head. Despite the supposed unity government, Kurdistan remains semi-autonomous. It would not have been a problem to make that official.
I think back in ’91 he was dead wrong on Kuwait. In hindsight he was wrong to back the Iraq War but I supported it at the time, too. I was w-w-rong, but I did believe both Powell and Tony Blair. If you never saw Blair’s speech to Parliament, you should find it and watch it.
But why do I like him? I dunno. He seems genuine, and refreshing. Never can explain why we like someone.
LikeLike
mark:
If you never saw Blair’s speech to Parliament, you should find it and watch it.
Totally agree with you. I have a link to it somewhere, but I can’t seem to find it. I’ll have to search thru my old e-mails, as I remember quoting from it in an argument with someone about the justification for the invasion. I thought I linked to it at my old blog, but it doesn’t seem to be there. I’ll keep looking and post a link if I find it.
LikeLike
mark
fair enough thanks
Frankly though I disagree about Blair. I think he is the biggest me too suck up that the UK has ever had. They got nothing out of playing best friend to the US except to maintain the illusion that they are somehow a great power still.
LikeLike
banned:
They got nothing out of playing best friend to the US
Have you considered the possibility that Blair wasn’t looking to “get something out of it”, but went along because he thought it the right thing to do?
I’ve always been baffled by the “Bush’s lapdog” spin (very prevalent in the UK) on Blair’s decision to support the ousting of Saddam. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. Bush and Blair were not ideological allies, and politically within the UK it would have been far more advantageous for Blair to take the French/German route. The only sensible explanation is that he believed the intelligence and thought it was the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Also for all Biden’s gaffes, there’s also this:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/biden-recounts-thoughts-of-suicide-124580.html
“He seems genuine, and refreshing” pretty much describes it to me as well.
Blair’s speech on Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1
Video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8189000/8189443.stm
Bush’s speech to the UN in September 2002 was particularly effective as well when he laid out the long list of previous UN resolutions that had been violated and disregarded:
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-12/us/bush.transcript_1_generations-of-deceitful-dictators-commitment-peace-and-security/3?_s=PM:US
When discussing the invasion of Iraq it’s useful to dis-aggregate the original decision to invade vs how the occupation was handled. If we had left in 2003-2004 and skipped the whole CPA episode, it would be viewed differently. Based on the information available at the time, I would have made the same decision as Bush & Blair.
LikeLike
Scott
At the top, the British know they’re an old man and are mad as hell about it. They are not going to go quietly into the good night.
That’s why they chose the “austerity” path, even though not part of the euro , just as they have done after every major crisis in the 20th century because they know that the only real dominance they have in the modern world is financial, they will do anything to protect the pound.
LikeLike
btw
No i never believe governents do anything because it was “the right thing to do” especially since doing the right thing essentially handed our supposed enemy Iran it’s greatest triumph since the Ayatollah and it cost them nada.
LikeLike
banned:
No i never believe governents do anything because it was “the right thing to do”
I can be cynical, but that to me is just cartoonish cynicism. Cynicism for the sake of being cynical.
I think Obama is wrong about all kinds of things, and I think he would lie and cheat (and has) as much as he could in order to gain power. But I don’t doubt that for the most part what he would do with that power is, at least in his mind, the right thing to do.
To think that all, or even most, decisions a politician makes is calculated for reasons (presumably personal gain?) other than an honest assessment of the best thing for their consituency is to turn politicians by definition into caricatured monsters. And I don’t believe for one second that they are.
Not even Democrats.
LikeLike
“If we had left in 2003-2004 and skipped the whole CPA episode, it would be viewed differently. Based on the information available at the time, I would have made the same decision as Bush & Blair.”
The information at the time was largely supplied by Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi, whom the CIA already had deemed untrustworthey years before.
LikeLike
No, the information was largely based on Iraq’s refusal to account for previously known existing chemical and biological stocks and the results of the August 1995 defection of Hussein Kamel al-Majid showing how much the inspectors had missed the first time around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel_al-Majid
Ahmed Chalabi is a distraction. The WMD issue was broader than just nuclear.
LikeLike
Yes, the Israelis fed us false info and we bought it because it fit the storyline that Bush wanted to tell. In reality, Saddam was afraid of Iran and his own grip on power so didn’t/couldn’t come clean and then at a certain point he realized that it didn’t actually matter what he did that Bush wanted him gone, not WMDs
Also the Iranians simply did not believe we could do anything so stupid and so openly beneificial to them, so the Bush administration had to have many high level diplomtaic contacts with iran leading up to the invasion to convince them yes, we actually were only going after Saddam.
LikeLike
banned:
In reality, Saddam was afraid of Iran and his own grip on power so didn’t/couldn’t come clean and then at a certain point he realized that it didn’t actually matter what he did that Bush wanted him gone, not WMDs
So di you have a direct line into Baghdad and have a few chats with Saddam prior to his untimely demise, or is this “reality” something you’ve come up with on your own?
LikeLike
“To think that all, or even most, decisions a politician makes is calculated for reasons (presumably personal gain?) other than an honest assessment of the best thing for their consituency is to turn politicians by definition into caricatured monsters”
Why, that’s how the get to BE politicians. Not necessarily for thier own pecuniary gain, though.
If we had a government where the majority of people in it were dedictated to doing the right thing over professional aggrandizement, how the hell do you explain the situation that we are in now?
(now if you measure “constituency” as the people who contribute the most to their campaign and or push them forward the farthest in office, then we have the basis for a neogitated settlement.
LikeLike
banned:
If we had a government where the majority of people in it were dedictated to doing the right thing over professional aggrandizement, how the hell do you explain the situation that we are in now?
Because what people think is the right thing isn’t necessarily the right thing. That’s the problem with such a huge degree of cynicism. It can’t seem to fathom what is the most obvious and likely explanation when things go awry – people are very often simply wrong in their beliefs and calculations.
LikeLike
“So di you have a direct line into Baghdad and have a few chats with Saddam prior to his untimely demise”
As Meat Loaf sang:
“You took the words right outta my mouth”
“He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s. And those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq,” Piro says.
“So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.
“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
“He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?” Pelley asks.
“Absolutely,” Piro says”
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-3749494.html?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody
LikeLike
banned:
“You took the words right outta my mouth
Your link just takes me to a generic CBS page…no article. Who’s Piro?
Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, told FBI interrogators that he maintained the perception of having WMDs to not appear weak and to deter another invasion of his country.
Well that turns out to have been the mother of all idiotic calculations, wouldn’t you say?
LikeLike
“Qaddafi told then-International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei in 2003 that he did not believe that his nuclear program enhanced Libya’s security. He was either lying or wrong. Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, told FBI interrogators that he maintained the perception of having WMDs to not appear weak and to deter another invasion of his country. He was right — not having nuclear weapons made him weak. Authoritarian governments will have learned lessons from both examples of outside regime change, and those will be applied to their own decisions about whether to pursue the bomb.”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/18/did_qaddafis_end_justify_the_means?page=0,1
LikeLike
scott :
You didn’t read the piece. He’s the guy who interrogated Saddam before he was executed as per your request.
LikeLike
banned:
You didn’t read the piece.
Correct. For some reason I can’t get to it. Maybe I am on a watch list somewhere. I’ll try your google recommendation.
BTW, why do you discount the possibility that SH’s admitted attempts to fool everyone into thinking he had WMD actually worked?
LikeLike
I’m sorry if the link doesn’t work for you, Try Scott Piro CBS interview on Google
LikeLike
scott:
I am too much of a cynic then, I accept the designation.
LikeLike
Just so I understand, the Israeli’s lied to Bush and he then crafted the story that he wanted to tell. So, did Bush actually beleive the supposed Israeli lies? If so, then how did that square with Bush’s already wanting to tell a story? What difference would it have made then to lie to Bush if he was already going to invade? If Bush invaded Iraq knowing they had no WMD’s, why did the Israeli’s feel the need to lie to him?
LikeLike
Worth noting from the same CBS piece you cite regarding the FBI Interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-3749494.html?pageNum=6
Also, video link for the interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3756675n
LikeLike