Soooo…
Freedom Caucus leader Matt Gaetz just went on air and said “I feel like most conservatives support “limit save grow” (the >22% across the board slash and burn economy destroying cuts) and they don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage.”
There you have it…those controlling this manufactured economic crisis know this is terroristic hostage taking for ransom, they think of it in those terms themselves.
Remember, the American economy is their hostage, and they plan to cut out its kidney and send it through the mail on Wednesday.

Fiscally responsible? Are they saving money? Are they putting America ahead of themselves? Are their stated plans even possible? Is this in any way a rational, reasonable, or sane way to govern? Would MAGgots refrain from murder if circumstances were reversed and Dems were holding Trump’s economy hostage?
The answer to all is a resounding “no”.

Acceleration is a big factor if you're doing any evasive maneuvering, because turning scrubs speed and you have to gain it back, preferably fast. It's not everything, but it matters.

Don't get me wrong, I do admit there are interesting, possibly unique, even useful features of the F-35, I just don't see any need for it, and certainly not at the price. When was the last time an American was shot down in a jet fighter?

My main issue with this plane is that it's sold as a replacement to nearly ALL other planes, which it had to be because of it's price tag. It doesn't do most of it's 'jobs' as well as the planes it replaces, is incredibly more expensive than they are, and they weren't in need of replacement in the first place, so why did we have this $1.3 trillion poorly performing jobs program for the aerospace industry during an economic crisis? We had much better things to spend that money on, and killing this plane project would not make us a whit less safe or ready.

Nice, I like that idea, a swarm of jammer drones to eliminate all electronic advantages. I'll put your name in the hat for the evil super genius prize this year.

Agreed, the 1 on 1 fighting scenario is not the plan anymore. That doesn't mean it never happens though, or won't ever happen in the future, and as Americans we want/expect to win every single time.

Though this might interest you http://videosift.com/video/yanis-varoufakis-the-origins-of-the-european-economic-crisis

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

I love hearing an asshole who fired 30,000 people (way before the 2008 economic crisis started) DARE to talk about employment.

Stupid piece of shit. Just another delusional moron from the GOP camp.

Pot/potting, not put/putting. That's golf

Also, @BicycleRepairMan don't forget that he plays both left and right handed shots, finishes with a left handed black to increase the difficulty for himself. Practically no one does this, and certainly not at his level. It's widely accepted that O'Sullivan is the best player the game has ever seen, and he'd still be one of the best solely with his left hand.

@A10anis - pub closures are nothing to do with that. Kids aren't even allowed in pubs, so i don't know what on earth you're basing that on. The economic crisis and subsequent austerity issues are the cause of pub closures; that's why it's been in the news recently that the government needs to do more to help pubs out because they're closing at a rapid rate. I can't honestly believe you're suggesting that banning indoor smoking is causing pub closures. Or snooker hall closures, but i'm afraid i don't have any current knowledge to counter that argument as i do with pubs.

I'm a neuroscientist. I get it. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for this kid. Lots of things that happen suck for lots of people. I'm saying one cop tasering one kid doesn't constitute national news. People get tasered all the time. This one is particularly jarring because it's a kid. Thus, it's a heartstrings story, not one that will help you inform your decisions in any way whatsoever.

>> ^Murgy:

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.
At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.
>> ^bmacs27:
They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.

At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.

>> ^bmacs27:

They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

Playing devil's advocate here... is this real journalism? Isn't this just the same sensationalist nonsense from a different angle?

I guess my question would be this: who cares? Who really cares that another cop flew off the handle? What does informing us about this really accomplish? It seems they just sift through local news sources to find human interest pieces that aren't of any particular national relevance (in other words, of coooooourse they aren't covered in the "corporate media"). Further, it means they aren't doing any real journalism, they're sifting through the feed just like everyone else. They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here.

This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

There have been a few people hatin' on TYT around here over the last few days.
And I see where you are coming from.
Even I am frequently irritated by Cenk's antics.
But, I believe that TYT serves an important--even necessary--function.
Do you think you'll see this story anywhere in the corporate media?
If you do see it, it will be buried on the lower half of the third page of the second section of your newspaper (a kind of old-timey, papery blog).
So, hate away if you want, I still like TYT for their commitment to real journalism.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^coolhund:
I would actually believe it, if I watched too much Fox News and believed that there was no economic crash right before Obama went to office and I was blind and stupid enough to not see that other countries dont fare better (not even Germany) and have very similar changes to that what republicans try to blame on Obama.
I just saw some idiot video on Youtube where someone compared the gas prices from right before Obama went to office to where they are now, of course telling that it will rise and rise much higher with ONLY Obama in office. That under Bush they were actually much higher and dropped to such low numbers before Obama due to a massive economic crisis, was left out.
I understand the right wing propaganda very well. As I said, my thoughts were similar some time ago.

Wait...what are you talking about? Have you seen some of my posts on this site? I'm more Left than anyone on here. Noam Chomsky is Left...he's an Anarcho sydicalist.
I'm not talking about Fox News or right wing propaganda. I'm talking about the most quoted living man, the most important intellectual alive. He says Obama is worse than Bush, I've read about it, I'm saying you should too.


I know how all this right wing propaganda has influenced even leftists. Thats why I dont give a shit. Also because I know Chomsky and hes not very accurate all the time. Because I listened to people like him before, I was so dead wrong. Now I get the facts myself and think by myself. You can quote him all you want. Hes just another guy on one side with his own agenda. Note that he supported Obama 2008, even said people should vote him. Shortly before that he supported an independent candidate. And now hes saying Obama is worse than Bush and even says he said it all along, even before the election, that Obama is worse than Bush.

Yeah, you go ahead and use him as your argument...

>> ^coolhund:

I would actually believe it, if I watched too much Fox News and believed that there was no economic crash right before Obama went to office and I was blind and stupid enough to not see that other countries dont fare better (not even Germany) and have very similar changes to that what republicans try to blame on Obama.
I just saw some idiot video on Youtube where someone compared the gas prices from right before Obama went to office to where they are now, of course telling that it will rise and rise much higher with ONLY Obama in office. That under Bush they were actually much higher and dropped to such low numbers before Obama due to a massive economic crisis, was left out.
I understand the right wing propaganda very well. As I said, my thoughts were similar some time ago.


Wait...what are you talking about? Have you seen some of my posts on this site? I'm more Left than anyone on here. Noam Chomsky is Left...he's an Anarcho sydicalist.

I'm not talking about Fox News or right wing propaganda. I'm talking about the most quoted living man, the most important intellectual alive. He says Obama is worse than Bush, I've read about it, I'm saying you should too.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^coolhund:
If Romney is elected, I will loose all my respect for America.
How anyone can vote someone like Romney after 8 years of Bush, is beyond any of my understanding and tolerance.

So where are you from just wondering? I just can't let this pass. Obama is worse than Bush. I'll say it again...OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH. The only reason why the World...and that is intellectuals and leaders not the population but the only reason why they like Obama better than Bush is because Obama is NICER about being a fucking evil bastard. Bush just said straight up, we don't care what you think. Obama says with a smile that it doesn't matter what you think.
Obama is continuing and expanding the murderous policies from under Bush he's just being nicer about it.

Im from Baghdad and lost my whole family to Bush. Will you now shut up? WTF is that kind of stupid question?
Seriously, I actually supported Bush the first legislation and most of his second. But I learned from my mistakes, and that mistake is huge and something I feel really bad about, because so many people told me that I was wrong before and then I got it in the face when he admitted the Iraq war was a lie and several other unbelievable corruption stuff under his watch, outgoing from republicans. This guy started so much shit, that will haunt us for hundreds of years, and of course Obama cant do shit about it, with the republican obstructionists in the congress. However you see how he tries it, and how he tries to please the republicans at least a little, so they dont block the other 25% of the stuff he actually was able to change. Just look for how long he fought for something essential like Medicare, that many other western countries, WHICH ARE NOT SOCIALISTS, have had implemented for decades and have it working fine.
As I said, Obama is actually trying a lot to make things better, but the president is no dictator. Just look at the republican lies, that were so successful that even democrats believe them now. And people like you who have no clue about politics actually believe republicans claiming Obama is so bad, while THEY are blocking everything he does.
Dont get me wrong, Obama did a lot of crap by himself too, just like every other president before, but to say he is WORSE than Bush... lol... seriously?

Noam Chomsky says he's worse than Bush, has written and presented the evidence that he's worse than Bush. The Most Important Intellectual and US Critic says that Obama is worse than Bush. Go read what he wrote, I can't convince you here.


I would actually believe it, if I watched too much Fox News and believed that there was no economic crash right before Obama went to office and I was blind and stupid enough to not see that other countries dont fare better (not even Germany) and have very similar changes to that what republicans try to blame on Obama.
I just saw some idiot video on Youtube where someone compared the gas prices from right before Obama went to office to where they are now, of course telling that it will rise and rise much higher with ONLY Obama in office. That under Bush they were actually much higher and dropped to such low numbers before Obama due to a massive economic crisis, was left out.

I understand the right wing propaganda very well. As I said, my thoughts were similar some time ago.

You'll find no argument from me about whether our government has been rattling the hornets nest over there for some time. However, I don't place the blame for Muslim outrage on America, or the KGB, I place the blame on Islam. The reason they are so stirred up is because their religion teaches them to hate Jews, Christians, and anyone else who isn't a Muslim. In their eyes we are all the devil and need to be destroyed, or subjugated.

What's going on in the middle east right now, specifically in Iran, cannot be understood unless it is seen through the lens of their particular eschatology (beliefs about the end times). What the Iranians believe is that the coming of their Messiah, called the Mahdi, or the 12th Imam, is imminent. They believe what ushers in the Mahdis return is a series of great wars at the end of time. They also believe that Iran will be the spark to that flame. This is what Irans top general said recently:

"With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war

The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God"

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/iran-official-big-war-means-mahdis-coming/

So what you have here, essentially, is a doomsday cult looking to acquire a nuclear weapon so that they can start a global war to usher in the coming of their Messiah. They believe that their Messiah will subjugate every nation under Islam and bring about worldwide sharia law.

So, everyone who thinks that the middle east is a problem we can straighten out with diplomacy, or instituting democratic reforms, is extremely foolish. It's the same with these sanctions; Iran is not going to break or change their mind. Their top general stated it in very clear terms; that they believe martyrdom is the only true path to God. It is reported that their leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ascends to the sky (in the spirit) once a year to meet with the Mahdi, and that the Mahdi ordered him to continue the nuclear program because it would be what facilitates his coming.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/iran-preparing-now-for-armageddon/

If you look at Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN last week, it was all about the soon coming of the Mahdi:

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/exclusive-ahmadinejad-gives-most-detailed-explanation-of-twelfth-imam-to-date-says-mahdi-will-soon-re
ign-over-whole-world/

This is why our policies in the Mideast fail again and again. Everything we try to do there ends up creating the exact opposite effect. Even when they themselves overthrow repressive governments, they end up electing even more repressive governments. It's not a problem we can solve. This is the way things are headed, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Their Messiah is most likely our Antichrist and regardless of how it all comes about, the end result was predicted over 2000 years ago;

There will be a one world government, one world economy and one world religion, with the Antichrist at the head. There will be some kind of global calamity in the near future, such as an economic crisis, or perhaps a war, involving Israel, and that is when the Antichrist will enter the world stage. He will come preaching peace and safety, and will head off the calamity by establishing a 7 year peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the world. At around the 3.5 year mark the Antichrist will take off his mask and declare himself to be God, and cause the entire world to worship him. Anyone who doesn't know Jesus Christ at this time will follow the antichrist. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will be eternally condemned. If you're curious about what the mark of the beast is, it will probably be something like this:



The purpose of the mark is to control who can buy and sell. Anyone without the mark will be unable to participate in the economic system.

Don't count on believing later, or that you won't be deceived into taking the mark, because it will be under threat of death. Today is the day of salvation, so do not harden your heart because He is calling to you. The fact is that He loves you and is knocking on your door:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^Stormsinger:

The problem with that claim is that the animosity goes back well before Pacepa's time. We overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, because they were threatening oil company profits. By 1967, the KGB was doing very little except throwing gasoline on a fire we'd already started and built up to four alarm status. It's not reasonable to try and put the blame on the KGB...it clearly belongs on our own government agencies, which have proven over and over again to be extremely shortsighted and unwilling to accept any ethical boundaries.

4. cut the deficit... ACH!!!!

Enough with the Austerity Club talking points. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit, that is how government sparks an economic recovery. Wanna see what it looks like when you run zero deficit during an economic crisis? Just take a look at Spain and Greece with the German noose around their necks and pocketbooks. Or for a less extreme example, see Britain's very, very modest recovery since the Tories put in their deficit reduction plans in the middle of a crisis.