Rush the Entertainer, or GENOCIDAL PERPETRATOR?
Rush, Limbaugh is following a model that led to Rwandan GENOCIDE.
Using the airwaves, hateful rhetoric was placed alongside the sophisticated use of humor and popular Zairean music.
Widely listened to by the general population, it projected propaganda. It is widely regarded as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere that allowed the genocide to occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/resistance/2008/11/the-government-could-end-the-c.php
Interesting article tells you why they won't.
An excerpt
DJ: Why isn't anyone listening to these ideas?
CC: The point is that they have made huge errors in the design of their assistance plan and they were forecastable errors.
For instance, Paulson doesn't want there to be a stigma [around capital injections.] Does he really believe that by getting J.P. Morgan to participate, he creates the perception that JPM and Citi are the same?
Does he really believe that injecting preferred stock into banks is socialism but buying assets at above market price isn't? Does he really believe that?
There actually is a stock of knowledge about this. The scandal is that when Congress has been considering this, not one independent economist has been allowed to testify. Do you know why they weren't? Paulson and Bernanke didn't want anyone causing problems.
DJ: Wait, that sounds like a conspiracy.
CC: Democrats didn't want anyone [economists] testifying because it was before an election and no one was willing to stand before that bulldozer known as Paulson. No one wanted to make tough political decision before the election. They didn't empower any experts to come in and testify. Why is that? They were playing politics, too. That's what we're dealing with-a complete leadership failure in Congress and the administration.
Don't underestimate the role of politics in the decision not to fix things.
Permalink | Trackback
URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/11/25/the-paulson-plan-truly-idiotic/trackback/
]]>
11/24/2008
Start the video about 10 minutes in....Ed Yardeni (brilliant guy) discusses the ONLY possible solution to the credit crisis....LOWER RATES...he wants 4%.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=928656875
The Nation and Detroit would benefit. ]]>Everyone put on your life jackets, and in an orderly fashion head towards the lifeboats.
We'll start at first class first, and then proceed to the lower levels next, that's all folks".
Off mic "damn we haven't enough lifeboats, but at least there will be enough for the first class folks. But you stewards keep this to yourselves, the last thing we need is a panic. Hurry up and get the boats off of the side of the sinking ship, before the rest of the passengers, figure out we don't have enough lifeboats.
]]>http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811?currentPage=2
]]>
"Did you get that"
Obama and immigration?
John Mccain, accepting he's a sleazy hack
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/die-hard-top-20-moments.html
I am reminded too, by the part when both FBI agents (Johnson's) are in the helicopter talking about the casualties of the upcoming assault. Agreeing that the collateral damage is acceptable.
The right to privacy is cast aside, as acceptable. Given that the results intended will be achieved, getting the scoop in order to SMEAR OBAMA
Mr. McCain's plan will significantly ease the tax burden on American families with children by doubling the personal exemption to $7,000 from $3,500.
All you Joes and Janes, imagine you could have 10 kids @ 7000.00 dollars = 70k a year
"Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory," is the economic-political argument that the increases in the earnings of the rich are good for the poor because some of those additional earnings will benefit the middle class and the poor through increased spending, investment, and job creation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_up_effect
"The trickle up effect is an economic theory used to describe the flow of wealth from the poor to the affluent; it is opposite to the trickle down effect.
The trickle up effect states that benefits to the wealthy will be realized due to an increase in sales relative to the amount of benefits that are given to the poor. The trickle up effect argues itself as more effective than the trickle down effect because people who have less tend to buy more. In other words, the poor are more inclined than the wealthy to spend their money. This being so, proponents of the trickle up effect believe that if the lower and lower-middle classes are given benefits, such as tax breaks or subsidies, the increased funds would be spent at a much higher rate than would the upper class, given similar fund increases. Furthermore, the trickle up effect argues, many upper-class individuals do not spend their entire yearly salary to begin with, which is an indication that they will not spend any additional funds. Instead, they will save additional funds, thereby withholding those funds from the economy and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The trickle up effect avoids this pitfall by giving more money to those who would be more inclined to spend it."
There is a choice. Do we want to continue Bushes type of wealth creation, hoping it will trickle down?
The machinations of John McCain are like his Republican Party, MORE OF THE SAME.
]]>
Follower: denotes an adherent.
Tracker: denotes keeping one under surveillance
]]>]]>