Barry Yourgrau wonders why (not) this was all the NYTimes had to say about it:
9 P.M. (PBS) BUYING THE WAR The season premiere of "Bill Moyers Journal" examines the proposition that the news media were complicit in pushing the United States into the war in Iraq. Dan Rather, Tim Russert and Bob Simon appear in interviews.
11 comments:
maybe we can impeach the media too!
Here is more support for my theory of the Recession of 2010:
"Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that would change the tax treatment of capital gains income, according to a report released April 25 by the Congressional Research Service.
Among those are S. 102, introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), which would repeal the lower capital gains and dividend tax rates for 2009 and 2010, and its companion (H.R. 721), introduced by Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.)
"It is highly unlikely that the rules governing the taxation of capital gains income will remain unchanged for any length of time," said the report, updated April 11. "Capital gains taxes are a perennial topic of debate for Congress."
BNA Tax Report.
Y'see, long term cap gains are taxed at 15% right now. If this bill (which has little shot right now) becomes law, or if the Dems win in 2008 (and are likely to pass similar legislation), everyone with long term gains in the stock will SELL, SELL, SELL, causing a market crash in 2008. Due to wash sale rules, they won't buy back the same shares for another month.
The market will rebound, to be sure, but there will be much greater market volatility since there is no longer an incentive to hold stock for a year. Churning and burning becomes the rule. Smaller investors get burned, leave the market, and a recession ensues, just as it has after nearly every market meltdown.
Also exacerbating this, but to a much lesser extent, will be the massive outflows of money to tax havens by domestic taxpayers, for investment in foreign markets (which, to a greater degree, is happening).
My advice? Short the market in 2008.
BTW, the Dems know that a recession is possible, and they would, in fact, embrace it--it is a no-lose issue for them. First, they would blame it on Bush (after all, tax cuts are really bad for the economy) and, second, it is politically wise to take the pain early as voters have notoriously short memories.
Ever since Reagan, the trend has been to take action that will sink the economy immediately in the hopes that the economy will improve by the next election. Reagan imposed fiscal austerity which exacerbated Carter's "stagflation" and economic malaise. But tax cuts and defense spending had the economy roaring in a couple of years, and Reagan coasted to reelection. Bush 1, however, forgot that lesson and tried to take the medicine later. Look where that got him. When Clinton took office, he goosed a lingering Bush slowdown with tax hikes, causing a recession, but followed up with defense cuts and cooperation with the GOP, and the market had time to recover for 1996.
Ironically, in 2004, the Dems acted preemptively and accused Bush of doing this even before he took office.
My dear G, I finally had some time to read your blog. (I should have run right over when you offered to impregnate me on my own blog last month), but alas, I digress.
The media was absolutely complicit.
Think about the fact they had to basically give up their right to not be censored by becoming embedded reporters. They love death. They love torture. I won't even get into hurricanes.
There's an excellent documentary I got from Netflix last month regarding how the media influences political decision making, when they are in fact supposed to be observers and reporters of it. You can torture me and I won't remember the name. If you have Netflix I'll add you to my buddy list. It's really worth watching.
By the way, I am buying Lewis Black's book this weekend. He's a riot.
1) yes, impeach media...
2) taxes... ? AAAGHHH, my eyes... !! my eyes... !!
3) spared, baby, que pasa, chica... what are friends for... ??
:)
What're you complaining about? Nearly all taxes are paid by the top 40% of wage earners. Surely, you aren't one of those?
awwww, u 2 *really* missed each other, hmm... ?
puh-leeze!
In other news, here is a PDF link to the Kucinich articles. I think that they are actually well drafted. Not entirely frivolous in a legal sense (although that is a pretty low bar). They deserve serious consideration, then they should be seriously ignored. Better yet, the Committee should opine on whether the actions as stated could constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. They won't, of course, but it would add clarity to what is an impeachable offense. But that won't happen--then the Dems would not have an issue.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Impeachment_resolution.pdf
BTW, I was replying to you. I said I wasn't going to get into it with spared, and I am a man of my word.
i'm complaining, then, that it isn't the top 2%, and let the remainder 38% of your 40% skate...
and i want a top-down means-test selective service draft...
put the silver-spooners in uniform and ship 'em to faluja...
Fine, then I won't speak to the village dork and just address you G.
My household is a middle class income, around the 120K tax line, and I have no problem paying taxes as long as the schools are good, cops show up when they are supposed to and my money doesn't end up in someone's corporate account. The problem is that the taxes and so called tax cuts don't end up in a savings account for most americans. So call me upper, middle or lower class, I don't care. But don't pretend the ridiculous tax cut you are giving me isn't being poured into my gas tank and thereby back into your friends' pockets or eaten up by the insurance and healthcare industry which are both artificially inflated by your lobbyists.
Post a Comment