The Republicans are running with Romney and Ryan. After a lame introduction by Clint Eastwood – Romney gave a speech that has been noted for being fairly lacklustre. And what about the presumptive VP nominee Paul Ryan. He seems to be just there for the 1% and tells lies to the rest of us.
Contrary to the propaganda at the last election, it ain’t the spending that is causing the deficits. It is the other side of the ledger. Taxes collected by the Government are failing due to company losses. The recession was caused by money being ripped out of the economy by derivatives gone wrong, the government reaction is to reduce government spending, and now they weep at the consequent collapse in demand?
They are not thinking it through. They need to take their current efficiencies and spend a little on economic incentives that replace the demand by making the private economy sound. They are miles away from being able to recover the private sector so, as most hands off economist driven Conservative governments (GW Bush for example) do, they start a war to get that spending demand going.
The Liberal Democrats are not happy with their end of the bargain. They have to break this coalition.
– Comment on Guardian article
Coalition ‘most unlikely’ to meet key economic goals by next election
27 August 2012 11:59AM
The need for people to assert their ideas and own the consequences is invested in monumental sculpture as the preservation of memory is the stamp on history. Deep in our inner-child the need to be ahead of others can assert itself, core beliefs lead to a sense of oneness with a tradition of thinking. There is no fundamental reason that today’s left-right paradigm will be remotely similar to that fifty years on.
There is no guarantee that any of the many parties of Western democracies will be the same as they are now. Politics is a system of pools of clout and passages through which diplomatic pressure may be asserted.
Our model is like that of the herd animal – we create a flow to go with and democratically decide to lurch one way or another. In the current UK lurch, we have a Conservative-Liberal coalition. And lets abbreviate their gormless flight into obscurity with the epithet ConDem. Mainly as DemCon sounds like some video game marketing label and that would amount to mis-representation.
See also – Politics – Disturbing Trends history
Obama need do nothing. The Republicans may run out of feet to shoot themselves, but let’s hope it does not go downhill from there. It is painful to watch Romney having to discourage a Senator from standing due to the rather radically evil views he has expressed about women.
America remains the most significant economic and military giant there ever was and even though the juggernaut balances on a frozen lake it manages to eke out a little growth showing signs things are improving. It just costs a hell of a lot of cash. Cash that becomes less valuable by the second.
When the debt starts it seems like a good idea, we borrow. It is relatively easy. It is far harder to repay debt – especially if like the UK, you run huge deficits between what the tax man collects and what the Government is committed to spend. All expenses are too large for the tax take. So instead of casting the net over earnings a bit more fairly the Tories acts in Government have severely depressed the tax take. It is not just the austerity, it is the imbalance and relegation of many starting with the student fees and ending with the sale of the NHS to corporatisation.
If a business can borrow it can take on new risk, new staff and grow. If it can not take on risk, or the climate is too negative then it may simply act in the same way our Chancellor is, be boring and austere oneself away from doing anything about the crying baby of British economics.
But the US have a growing economy meaning that there is gradual improvement. After 9/11 the Dow Jones dropped for nearly the entire Bush era to below 10,000. Under the present administration it is far higher at 13,800. They gotta be doing something right.
The use of austerity has worn thin at least for the probable longevity of George Osborne. In its current form at least. Infrastructure spending by this two faced Government amount to allowing private roads to be built which is certainly going to provide some relief to chronic unemployment and incrementally it may result in economic improvement. But it is not what they set out to do, which is to build a bigger economy. That, they surmised, would result if we do what we would want a government to do, to protect wealth – to sustain privilege.
Which seems based on the misapprehension that wealth itself is a thing. It is not, really. It is the flowing of money that is the thing. The flow of money between viable entities finding areas of demand and creating supplies to meet them. I am hungry. I go eat a sandwich. And Joe’s is just around the corner. These connected imperatives, these compelling reasons to do things. Art. Achievement. Enterprise. Hobby. Obsession. A society with flows inward to fewer central points creates poverty as well as pockets of wealth. Taking risk on credit creates debt with a chance of wealth. Governments tend to run in debt as a natural state, hoping to improve things sooner.
If the measuring stick of a society is the degree of economic growth it can achieve, it establishes an instant demand for more population to share the load. If we can find an honest way to limit the growth of humanity we can then modulate our economics to fit more comfortably than the monied classes feeling they need to accumulate so much more than anyone else before anyone else gets their filthy mits on it. It is not so much that economies are inflating by increasing the money supply and devalusing currency slowly – it is the only way to evaporate the effect of trillions of dollars locked into tax havens. Unproductive wealth is the economic glutony of the modern world. And it works like cortisol in the body, it adds sink holes to the economy – which means that there is less actual cash in the system.
This is an ever accelerating economic phenomena of allowing tax havens. To attract people with a lot of asset income to reside Governments are obliged to allow tax havens into the economic equation.
The net effect with devaluation is to make the funds that tend to be locked into tax havens more at a risk of devaluation if left in your currency. The problem is that the Governments are compelled to compete for such retinues as those of the religiously rich.
Job creation by government in times of economic emergency yes. This Government’s record at economic improvement? Negative, trending: negative.
It is a questionnaire and is probably not all that scientific as it thinks I am nearly 100% for the Green Party. I am not a 100% anything. Changing one’s views is important unless one is running for office, when I guess it is not. In this case, I nearly agree with the opinion of the questionnaire as to my current world view. Nature is rather high on my priority list as is scientific logical thinking. I think my percentages for each would be closer to 55 / 80 / 75 / 50 / 3 – but here is the result of my answering the questionnaire. Cut and paste your link into a comment. I am looking for people with different views (pro Ron Paul or Romney most welcome) who want to publish stuff on Disturbing Trends… to balance a bit with my incredibly left wing leanings. I do not find “conspiracy theories” that convincing – more interested in discussing economic ideas and novel political ideas.
I side with results
I took the test on ISideWith.com.
99% Jill Stein – on science, social, environmental, economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, and healthcare issues
90% Barack Obama – on science, social, immigration, economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues
86% Stewart Alexander – on social, science, economic, immigration, foreign policy, environmental, and healthcare issues
30% Ron Paul on domestic policy, healthcare, and foreign policy issues
5% Mitt Romney no major issues
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
If a bigot like this does stand then the Republicans will be represented by what comes out of such vile mouths. Starting out with what sounds like hate speech directed at females in general and in particular rape victims, he mouths off about “medical research”, as though it were an observable fact. Which it isn’t. Rapists are not uniquely infertie. And pregnant women may not know what to do regardless of rape victims.
Having government people with this sort of view is indeed a very specific and dangerous threat to the rights of women.
The evil nonsense that implies that a woman who has not miscarried post rape is somehow complicit must not be glossed over. Such conservatives attempts to contrast Romney into a moderate become ever more bizarre. But this candidate for Senate should stand down.
This race – the one with Obama and Romney appears to be one of those that you will look back on and say it was a foregone conclusion. But you have to question strategies like this Todd Aitken – are idiots like him wheeled out solely to make Romney seem more acceptable and mainstream?
If the Republicans have him running for The Senate, it is quite a refection upon their values. They had better replace him before Wednesday.
Update: 20 August 2012
I remember reading that the Romney campaign is in favour of allowing rape victims appropriate care including access to abortion and has rebuked Todd Aiken for his statement. It is also possible that Aiken deliberately set off alarms bells so that Romney could rebuke him.
The easily impressed will be briefly impressed but the lasting image, the taste in the mouth is left by Aitken and what his statement implied. Is that now the Tories think?
I fear that it really is. They believe in controlling a little too much and reducing human rights as a commercial enterprise.
Iran insist, as they tend to, to make an entirely illogical case that because they send some pilgrims to fight with Assad against revolutionary forces which seem to be getting very out of control by a process of assassination of the head of the army, minister of defence and fighting with weapons that do appear from many sources, and no doubt that in some way the USA may be complicit in supporting probably Sunni Muslim forces, rebels and probably Al Qeada forces as well in the war against the Assad tyranny. And it is that mixture that sees the devout Islamic Shi’ite state support a secular Arab leader, a sort of shadow to Saddam and possibly the recipient of stocks of chemical warfare as well as an industry of domestic weapon building now being talked about. Very familiar territory but he is at war with his own citizens.
Not many voter would tick that box. Assad’s power is not only over, but he goes from one horror to the next with a sense of righteousness and self belief that is hard to fathom.
Understanding the economic crisis is not that easy. How can bankers pay themselves millions in bonuses. How can we pay Mark Zukerberg 16 billion for his website creation, Facebook? We did. That is why he got double just a few weeks ago what is now worth 8 billion dollars – so where did all that cash go? It went into his pocket.
It went to pay the people who’s stock went up, that is the beauty of a market – it revolves money around in transactions – it is the ammunition of the economy that is fired actively in an economy that functions. When bits of it start to fall off, especially the productive bits that enable the lives of millions of workers up and down the country we have unemployment and pointlessness instead of enterprise and pupose.
Why involve the lumbering unresponsive state with responsibility if the private sector has so spectacularly failed with it, why does the state believe it can do better, you hear the beautiful quitters – the image queens who tread on the political nerve of being liked while talking the talk.
Now why is that such a bad thing? One hears the question.
Why is it a good thing. To be controlled by a peacock. Would a stern eagle or a severe buzzard not product better results?
Capitalism is not about theft. It is about the flow of money towards enterprise and the growth of that which helps a large number of lives. Enriching individuals as Facebook launch obviously has, is really not the intention of capitalism.
This modern drain on the finances have to go somewhere, and reflect the devaluation of the British economy that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have dictated without a public mandate. And their enforced austerity is a given insofar as their idea of how to make things improve seems to be fixed, uncompromising even in the face of a triple dip recession.
See also: The Guardian