- click here
Editor in Chief: Steve Hynd News Editor: Tina Contributing Editor: Raja Special Contributor: Numerian Contributor: Don Henry Ford, Jr. Assoc. Contributor: Brian Downing Assoc. Writer: Cliff Schecter Assoc. Writer: Nat Wilson Turner Editor Emeritus:Sean Paul Kelley
Tracy Barnett Balloon Juice Drudge Retort Electric Politics The Gist Informed Comment In The Pink Col. Patrick Lang Lance Mannion Mondoweiss Raw Story Jia Tolentino's Books Bruce Schneier Seeing the Forest Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
aliasBruce Arms Control Wonk Jack Cluth Feministing Istanbul Notes Istanbul Calling Beyond Bridges The Reaction Rook's Rant Rubber Hose
Mixed Bag of Candy: Newshoggers Crooks and Liars Scholars and Rogues Ian Welsh Corrente PKU News St Martin Private Eye
Corner: Media Matters Rethink Afghanistan truthout AlterNet truthdig Glenn Greenwald Elephant Journal
Brian Downing's Picks: Al Jazeera Asia Times Night Watch Emirates Journal Soldiers for the Truth The War Report Iraq Casualties Global Security Nat's Nuclear Jazz Lounge: After the Future Grits For Breakfast Clusterfuck Nation The Narcosphere Latin America Herald-Tribune The Latin Americanist Boing Boing
Numerian's Numbers: Mother Jones Tom Dispatch Der Spiegel Big Picture Calculated Risk Bonddad House Bubble Prudent Bear
This is why we can't have nice things: we can't even talk about them without our corporate overlords overruling us.
All I can say is that Democrats should welcome this demonstration that antitax fanaticism has reached the point where it trumps standing up for our national interests.
Antitax fanaticism has always trumped concern for our national interests. And Democrats have consistently failed to capitalize on that observation.
The Right understands 'national interest' but places it below the interests of their elite group. The Democrats think 'national interest' means electing them.
The real national interest is the welfare of the general populace and while many small grassroots groups have staked out an area of concern, there is no sizable bloc defending our general interests.
I'm human. I sometimes misspeak by accident. You're a Republican. You always lie on purpose.
know what is best for us. They give us everything we really need. Dissent? Those ungrateful wretches should be suppressed and repressed
We no longer need to concern ourselves with betterment--if we did, then we would be trying to move beyond the Fate envisioned for us by Our Benevolent Masters, and that just cannot be allowed to happen.
hmmm...pardon me, but doesn't this sound more and more like Religion?
"It's no longer IOKIYAR....It's OK If You're A Republican, but IOKBYAR--It's OK BECAUSE You're a Republican." -- Me
No Dr. Krugman, It Won't Work Any Better This Time.
The last few paragraphs are especially chilling, but please read the whole thing:
Is there a solution? Yes. But we are not going to do it. Either, for a fixed rate, it requires either international coöperation, and the only kinds possible are for austerity for the developed world's working class and middle class one one hand, and bank bailouts on the other. And that second is getting thin. Or for a weaker dollar, the ability to tax the oil producers. And they aren't listening to our threats to invade. This is why the evidence indicates that there needs to be a generation of global conflict, including some outright wars, but not driven by them, which leads to a complete catastrophe. If there is one lesson of 2008-2010, it is that mere economic disaster is not enough to pry the developed world of its course, or the developing world off of its course. Only at a peace conference with a devastated world will there be the kind of far reaching and international consensus required to put a system in place, and the people to run it, that have a mandate for "never again." That is what the post-war era was: the results of a peace in a shattered world. Since disaster after disaster has not been enough, only catastrophe will be enough.
Is there a solution? Yes. But we are not going to do it. Either, for a fixed rate, it requires either international coöperation, and the only kinds possible are for austerity for the developed world's working class and middle class one one hand, and bank bailouts on the other. And that second is getting thin. Or for a weaker dollar, the ability to tax the oil producers. And they aren't listening to our threats to invade.
This is why the evidence indicates that there needs to be a generation of global conflict, including some outright wars, but not driven by them, which leads to a complete catastrophe. If there is one lesson of 2008-2010, it is that mere economic disaster is not enough to pry the developed world of its course, or the developing world off of its course. Only at a peace conference with a devastated world will there be the kind of far reaching and international consensus required to put a system in place, and the people to run it, that have a mandate for "never again." That is what the post-war era was: the results of a peace in a shattered world.
Since disaster after disaster has not been enough, only catastrophe will be enough.
It always has been and it's always led to the next war.
I agree, war is a resolution to this, but you know who would benefit far more than the US?
China. We'd end up looking like Europe after WWII, economically if not physically
nor is it the good answer. It may well be the answer we choose though. The above quote isn't advocating for a war--it's saying that we are leaving ourselves no alternative.
First comes the currency war, then the trade war, then the hot war.
Teach your children Chinese. They could be useful behind the front lines to interrogate P.O.W.'s. Don't assume that service will always be optional.
If that doesn't pan out toward the negative, your child will have a useful skill.
The Learning Center Financial Questions Answered
Advertise Liberally