"Tax and spend" is at least mathematically coherent when compared to "tax-cut and spend."
Many on the right are lamenting the "conversion" of former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and will likely start to discredit him for committing the unforgivable heresy of praising Clinton and criticizing Bush. Specifically, he praised Clinton for his fiscal-minded policies and focus on the spending deficit. Conversely, he criticized Bush and the Republican Congress for its out-of-control spending and divorce with fiscal discipline. He has it exactly right — the Democrats did not win in 2006, the Republicans lost.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - troll
...but bliffle's point remains that while the companies invest their hundreds of millions in alternatives hundreds of billions are going down the tube...err - forming our investment in a democratic Iraq that is
27 - Maurice
bliffle
I am going to take your answer as a "no".
I remember you but you may not remember me. You tried to pass yourself off as an engineer. You mentioned working on bread boards in the 1980s when the rest of us were running Spice simulations. I was suspicious of your answers then and it seems like you are reluctant to give me a straight answer now. Was up!
28 - Maurice
#20 funny as hell!
29 - Clavos
Interesting comment (#27), Maurice!
I'm definitely NOT an engineer (and I never saw the other exchange you mentioned), so I had no idea what "you must have attempted to stagger tune an IF strip at some time and thus understand some of the problems of manipulating a multi-variate closed loop system" meant.
Hmm. An eye-opener...
30 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, I think it's something like herding cats only nerdier.
Dave
31 - Dave Nalle
...but bliffle's point remains that while the companies invest their hundreds of millions in alternatives hundreds of billions are going down the tube...err - forming our investment in a democratic Iraq that is
Yes, but the excesses of the war in Iraq can't be blamed on the oil companies. Remember, they were never going to lose out. Controlling the refineries and the distribution system they were going to get their profits no matter who actually controlled the oil.
And I do think it's important to point out that the oil companies ARE doing something about the problem - at least the more responsible ones. They may be doing it to hedge their bets, but they're spending a hell of a lot more money than anyone, including the US government on alternative fuels and renewable energy technology development.
Dave
32 - Clavos
Dave writes:
"They [oil companies] may be doing it to hedge their bets, but they're spending a hell of a lot more money than anyone, including the US government on alternative fuels and renewable energy technology development."
Of course they are, their livelihood is at stake.
That's why I have to laugh at the followers of algore when they try to "debunk" the scientists, such as Richard Lindzen (who are questioning the alarmists' assumptions), because of the skeptics' supposed funding by Big Oil, as if the oil companies' only response to global warming theology is to try to suppress it.
33 - troll
it's not a matter of allocating blame - it would take more 'capital' than the companies control to move the technology along quickly
can anything but a State-ist approach (as in the early space program) focus enough resources on alternatives to make a difference in a timely fashion - ?
34 - Clavos
One thing the oils have more than anybody else, either the government, or academia: expertise and experience in energy production.
35 - Maurice
Everybody has probably already read this but I will put it here anyway.
36 - Michael J. West
tax-cut and spend" Republicanism
I like to think of it as "borrow and spend" Republicanism. ;-)
37 - bliffle
The alternative energyg programs of companies like GM and Exxom are basically window-dressing to fool the easily deceived, like Dave. As a bonus, they get millions, sometimes billions in federal handouts, which they are seldom held accountable for, so that money can be leaked back into traditional business models.
38 - John Bambenek
No one who receives federal handouts are held accountable... so why should oil companies be any different?
:)
39 - bliffle
Isn't the neo-econ program simply to spend every USA dollar and burden every USA asset with debt so that there are no assets left for the democrats to spend on the hated aid to mere people when the dems come back into power?
Serves two useful purposes: bankrupts the future democrat administration and puts a lot of money in the pockets of themselves and their allies.
Isn't that what Grover Norquist has advocated all these years?
40 - John Bambenek
I'm sure that's exactly how the defined the problem.
41 - Dave Nalle
That's why I have to laugh at the followers of algore when they try to "debunk" the scientists, such as Richard Lindzen (who are questioning the alarmists' assumptions), because of the skeptics' supposed funding by Big Oil, as if the oil companies' only response to global warming theology is to try to suppress it.
The numbers tell the story. Chevron spent $25,000 to fund anti-global warming research and $400,000,000 on alternative energy research.
Dave
42 - Dave Nalle
Isn't that what Grover Norquist has advocated all these years?
Not at all from what I've seen and read. He advocates radical reduction of government spending and creating a consensus on the issue so strong that democrats feel compelled to go along with the idea too. I've heard this claim before, but my research suggests it's apocryphal.
In this interview he's clearly advocating spending cuts.
Dave
43 - troll
*The numbers tell the story. Chevron spent $25,000 to fund anti-global warming research and $400,000,000 on alternative energy research.*
sounds like a lot but the point is that the State is spending that much in Iraq every couple of days
44 - John Bambenek
And it's absolutely fallicious to claim that simply because the money is being spent that money is unavailable for alternative energy.
First, just because money isn't being spent in Iraq doesn't mean that an equal amount of money will be spent on something else.
Second, there are plenty of other sources of waste that could be cut too. You mention Iraq simply because you disagree with the Iraq policy, not because it inherently limits alternative energy spending as if every dollar spent for the DoD comes straight from the DoE.
45 - troll
no John - I mention Iraq because it shows the State's capability to marshal resources dwarfs the ability of the private sector companies to meet a social goal
46 - moonraven
Federal spending does stimulate the economy. Ever hear of The New Deal?
And Bush is the perfect scapegoat for the disaster of the "New World Order"--with an IQ aslow as his he will just think it's all part of "My Pet Goat"--and will wish he could have finished the entire book on 9/11/2001....
47 - moonraven
Greenspan writes:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Not exactly what ole Nalle would have you jerkoffs believe he said.
48 - bliffle
So now the question that occurs to one is: which action will the neocons use to justify the other?
Will they re-iterate their paranoid claim of a Clash Of Cultures to provide cover for an oil grab?
Or, will they claim a need for an oil grab to cover their paranoid fantasy of a Clash Of Cultures?
Stay tuned.
49 - moonraven
It doesn't matter, bliffle.
The problem is the hundreds of millions of your countrymen whop will believe any crock of shit they tell them.
Nalle is a perfect example of someone who claims to think critically while inserting his nose as close as possible to Dick Cheney's anus.
50 - bliffle
Or, will they use the laughable Iraq Liberation Altruism as a cover for both an oil grab and their paranoid fantasy of a Clash Of Cultures?
Stay tuned.
51 - Maurice
#46 huh?
Please read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. He explains in great detail how the economic crash which brought on the Great Depression was caused by the Fed and could have recovered much faster if not for the New Deal.
I am citing a Nobel prize winner. Is there a better source for economic info?
52 - Clavos
No there isn't, Maurice, but mr will tell you she is.
53 - Dave Nalle
When Bliffle and MR start trading attaboys the discussion degenerates into utter meaninglessness with remarkable speed.
Dave
54 - bliffle
Nobel Prize Winner? Oh, you mean the rump prize invented recently by a swedish Bank, but not part of the Real Nobel Prize? THAT guy?
Friedman would have been a better economist if he hadn't been so pussy-whipped by that nazi hariden of a wife.
55 - Clavos
DING! Round One!!
harridan
56 - handyguy
Mr. Greenspan produced another bombshell that couldn't have made the Bushies very happy:
"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Everyone [even me occasionally] rolls their eyes when someone on the left says, No blood for oil. Maybe time to rethink that?
57 - handyguy
Oops, I see MR beat me to the punch on this one. Sorry.
58 - The Obnoxious American
The war may concern oil, but that doesn't translate into an "oil grab" of any kind. And I have yet to see any evidence of that happening.
Furthermore, greenspan is attacking bush from the right, he is not "converting." His attacks are legit, I am equally upset with Bush for wasting the opportunity to show the country that the Right wing viewpoints are the best. It's worth noting that Bush acted this way to seem somewhat bipartisan, which was idiotic as he just wound up making both sides angry at him. And the GOP lost control in 2006 as a result.
At the end of the day, while Bush messed up in practice, it doesn't change the fact that the underlying principles of the GOP are sound. Electing a dem to the white house in 2008 won't make anyone, especially greenspan happy.
59 - handyguy
Incorrect, Mr. Obnoxious. It would make at least 50 million Democrats and Dem-leaning independents very happy indeed. Your own mileage, as they say, may vary.
60 - moonraven
Milton Friedman???????????????????????
Give us a fucking break. His Chicago Boys neoliberlism put all the economies of Latin America in the toilet--where most of them, sadly, still reside.
61 - Clavos
"His Chicago Boys neoliberlism put all the economies of Latin America in the toilet--where most of them, sadly, still reside."
Tell that to the Chilenos.
62 - Clavos
"Incorrect, Mr. Obnoxious. It would make at least 50 million Democrats and Dem-leaning independents very happy indeed"
They will be an improvement over Bush's tax-cut-and-spend policies; we'll just go back to the traditional democrat tax-and-spend.
But it won't make me happy, not until we cut back spending substantially.
But neither the reps or the dems are willing to do that; it's too easy for both sides to buy votes with gummint spending.
63 - troll
*Tell that to the Chilenos.*
I would...but they were disappeared
64 - Clavos
A straw man, troll.
Has nothing to do with Friedman's involvement in Chile.
Besides, there are still over 16 million of them enjoying the most prosperous economy in LatAm, courtesy of Mr. Friedman
65 - troll
sorry Clavos - Friedman will never be free of his association with Pinochet and those heady days of repression...no straw man there
66 - Clavos
Ah, so Friedman wasn't really down there to help Pinochet set up a viable economy, but rather as a hit man.
That's interesting, troll, I didn't know that.
Learn something new every day....
67 - troll
si nails - an economic hit man
the argument goes - he couldn't have run his economic experiments without a Dictator to knock heads
68 - Clavos
And what's his version?
69 - troll
that Pinochet was an embarrassing necessity
70 - Clavos
The bottom line, of course, is Chile has a strong and viable economy.
Mussolini DID make the trains run on time.
And Mao DID start China on the road to modernization.
Friedman didn't run the country, just the economy.
Nor, as far as I know, did he kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed (at least not knowingly). I'd say that on balance, he did more good than harm down there.
71 - troll
the bottom line is that the the end does not justify the means
72 - John Bambenek
The bottom line is that guilt by association is still a fallacy.
73 - Clavos
No, of course not.
But there's no reason to condemn Friedman's activities in Chile, either.
What he did was good, not bad.
It seems to me you're applying a guilt by association standard here.
74 - Lumpy
Let's give Pinochet some credit. He took Chile from a bankrupt socialist hellhole to a prosperous modern country. Friedman helped, but Pinochet did most of the hard work. When the international socialist lynch mob tried him in their kangaroo court in England he kept asking why he wasn't being tried in Chile. And the truth was that they knew no jury in Chile would convict the man who was their national savior.
75 - troll
Friedman merely demonstrated once again that fascism works as the economic response to anti-capitalist movements...
his favorite bumper sticker was 'eat your weak and thrive'...at least that's what I heard
was he guilty of 'murder' - ?
"once the rockets go up who cares where they come down...that's not my department...said Werner von Braun" (T Lehrer)
Lumpy - the mines weren't nationalized until Allende was elected...socialism survived a whole two years in Chile