Connect the dots
There are three concurrent bits of news that no one is connecting yet, but I believe they are all part of a unified whole.
- The first is the sudden revelation by Bob Novak that Condoleeza Rice supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. To say this is unexpected is a bit of an understatement. Why would the administration pick now to declare victory and leave? (Pay no attention to the permanent bases there, however. If they become US military enclaves surrounded by hostile territory - like Guantanamo, it doesn't really matter.)
- Bush's popularity is dropping like a stone. He's down to 45% at last count.
- Scott Ritter now reiterates his claim that the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch an attack against Iran by June. Isn't it funny that this is not reported in the US corporate media?
The best question would be what will happen to precipitate action on this timetable?
Q: "where do you get the troops to attack Iran".
A: "by taking the Sir Robin approach and bravely fleeing Iraq"
Gimme a 'P'!
Gimme an 'O'!
Gimme an 'L'!
Gimme another 'L'!
Gimme an 'S'!
What does it spell?!
War!
(apologies to Country Joe and the Fish)
Me? In May, I'm buying shares in ProFunds UltraBear investors.
Who Pays? GH PUD rate structure
PUD rate comparison
The Grays Harbor PUD's pricing structure discourages conservation
Who arms the terrorists?
John Ashcroft, that's who.
Arming terrorists
Saint Paul nails it, once again
Paul Krugman: Deficits and Deceit
the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
Taxes run the risk of slowing the economy... unless it's a tax on po' folk - Greenspan
The very next day after telling congress that the US budget needs to be brought into balance, primarily through spending cuts because taxes jeopardize the economy, he tells a presidential advisory panel that a national sales tax is a good idea.
Yahoo! News - Greenspan Touts Idea of a Consumption Tax.
Our government and its entire supporting apparatus is against us.
Alan Greenspan: Shill
Cut a $450b deficit through spending cuts? Who's he kidding?
"Addressing the government's own imbalances will require scrutiny of both spending and taxes. However, tax increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base"
Tax increases 'of sufficient dimension to deal with the fiscal problems' would be essentially exactly what taxes have been cut in the last four years. Surely he's not suggesting that our economy didn't grow during the '90's? Taxation at that level was proven consistent with robust growth. Taxation at our current level, combined with spending $646 billion on a war of choice, has been proven to be inconsistent with that level of growth.
How he retains any credibility is a mystery to me.
