--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On 03/13/2011 09:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
> Dick,
>
> I believe I would sue for attempted extortion.
>
> On Mar 12, 6:02 pm, dick thompson<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/03/wisconsin-unions-now-th...
>>
>> This guy Palmer sounds like a real winner and so does his organization.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You people are so silly.--
Governments have had satellites that can read a license plate for years and they fail to tell people about tsunamis etc in time to help them
Clearly what we need is to privatize these warning systems. The bureaucrats are too dumb and lazy to be any help
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Mary Wilson <marytheprez@yahoo.com> wrote:
And I sure hope they cut the budget of the NUKE power industry here...we do not need more nuke plants...we need more wind and solar power. We shall see what a friggin' mess THEY make of this vital issue.
From: Greg Dempsey <gregdempsey@sti.net>
To: greg dempsey <gregdempsey@sti.net>
Sent: Fri, March 11, 2011 7:48:07 PM
Subject: [PresidentBarakObama] *? 2 ALL: GOP BUDGET PLAN WOULD CUT TSUNAMI RELIEF & PREPAREDNESS - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*
![Tsunami Relief Gop Budget Cuts]()
Hi Team!*? 2 ALL:GOP BUDGET PLAN WOULD CUT TSUNAMI RELIEF & PREPAREDNESS -(above): Right now, the National Weather Service is facing budget cuts upwards of$126 million but some feel as though safety will be the largest cost. - wthr.comSam Stein reports:"Thursday night's massive earthquake in Japan and the resulting tsunami warnings that have alarmed U.S. coasts, seem likely to ignite a debate over a previously little-discussed subsection of the spending bills currently being debated in Congress."Tucked into the House Republican continuing resolution are provisions cutting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the National Weather Service, as well as humanitarian and foreign aid.
"Presented as part of a larger deficit reduction package, each cut could be pitched as tough-choice, belt-tightening on behalf of the GOP. But advocates for protecting those funds pointed to the crisis in Japan as evidence that without the money, disaster preparedness and relief would suffer.
"'These are very closely related,' National Weather Service Employees Organization President Dan Sobien told The Huffington Post with respect to the budget cuts and the tsunami. 'The National Weather Service has the responsibility of warning about tsunami's also. It is true that there is no plan to not fund the tsunami buoys. Everyone knows you just can't do that. Still if those [House] cuts go through there will be furloughs at both of the tsunami warning centers that protect the whole country and, in fact, the whole world.'"
![A committee aide speaks to Sen. John Rockefeller.]( "A committee aide speaks to Sen. John Rockefeller.")
Sen John Rockefeller (WV-D, above) says the disaster in Japan is a 'cruelwake-up call' to anyone going after NOAA's budget. | AP Photo - PoliticoGOP budget plan would cut Tsunami relief and preparedness - what are your comments?
Greg Dempsey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
Voice of the People========GOP Budget Plan Would Cut Tsunami Relief & Preparedness
Tsunami Relief And Preparedness Cut In GOP Budget Proposal: National Weather Service
First Posted: 03/11/11 04:22 PM Updated: 03/11/11 04:22 PM
WASHINGTON -- The House full-year continuing resolution, which has not passed the Senate, would indeed make steep cuts to several programs and functions that would serve in a response to natural disasters (not just tsunamis) home and abroad. According to Sobien, the bill cuts $126 million from the budget of the NWS. Since, however, the cuts are being enacted over a six-month period (the length of the continuing resolution) as opposed to over the course of a full year, the effect would be roughly double.
As for NOAA, the House GOP cuts are even deeper. The House spending bill is roughly $450 million below the president's 2011 budget requests. The Senate Democratic bill would be $110 million below that request. The White House-allied Center for American Progress, argued that the House spending bill would actually cut $1.2 billion from the president's budget requests, likely by taking into account that the bill does not provide NOAA the funding increase requested for the Joint Polar Satellite System.
A request to comment from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee was not immediately returned.
Either way, the lower funding levels would force major institutional readjustments. An internal analysis put together by the House Democratic Finance committee before the tsunami struck, argued that such cuts "could result in the closure of up to 12 forecast offices that safeguard American lives and property. Each forecast office issues forecasts and warnings to an average population of 2.5 million people."
The proposed cut to the Operation, Research, and Facilities account would also result in a 21 day furlough of NOAA's employees.
The ramifications of spending cuts would potentially extend beyond tsunami or natural disaster preparedness to the post-catastrophe operations as well. In late February, a wide coalition of aid groups wrote Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to warn against the major cuts that the House bill made with respect to global disaster aid (67 percent cut relative to 2010 levels), refugee assistance (45 percent) and global food relief (41 percent).
"It is shocking to imagine that in the next major global humanitarian crisis - the next Haiti, Tsunami, or Darfur - the United States might simply fail to show up," the heads of 29 international aid organizations wrote. "Addressing the drivers of the national debt is wise. Abruptly reducing US humanitarian commitments in order to save less than one quarter of one percent of total discretionary spending is not. These cuts would imperil the longstanding US commitment to provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance for those threatened by disaster and conflict."
__._,_.___![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
Mark, the manner-less party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J.
A. A. —
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:56 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:>
On Mar 11, 10:34 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Section 1, 2& 3: States shall recognize other states� public acts,
>
> > > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more
> > > strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the
> > > states having laws governing such.
>
> THERE GOES MY STATES RIGHT TO THE DEATH PENALTY AND LIFE IN PRISON FOR
> REPEAT OFFENDER PEDOPHILES...
>
> English, that is grammatically
>
> > > written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and
> > > shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse. Laws,
> > > documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written
> > > concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average
> > > people,
>
> JUST WHAT IS "AVERAGE"... DEFINE "LEGALESE".... DOES THAT MEAN (IT CERTAINLY
> IMPLIES) THAT ANY "OFFICIAL" LANGUAGE MUST BE IN A FORM THAT WOULD ALLOW
> IDIOTS AND DROPOUTS TO UNDERSTAND..(EBONICS).. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT ANYONE
> WITH AN EDUCATION COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
>
> or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed.
>
> > > Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages
> > > in civil court.
>
> EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT A THOUSAND YEAR OLD LANGUAGE??
>
> No person shall be punished for violations of laws
>
> > > that: aren�t common knowledge;
>
> SO IF I CLAIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW THAT KILLING UNCLE JOE WAS "ILLEGAL" I
> CAN'T BE PROSECUTED.
>
> disagree with the macro moral consensus
>
> > > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first
> > > year and passed by less than 60% of the House.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan, a socialist-communist masquerading as a conservative, is
> > undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist
> > > hodge-podge.
>
> > > On 03/10/2011 06:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Folks: About 1/3rd of my New Constitution relates to straightening-
> > > > out the Judiciary. Here, in sequence, is...
>
> > > > " Article IV:
>
> > > > Section 1, 2& 3: States shall recognize other states� public acts,
> > > > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more
> > > > strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the
> > > > states having laws governing such. English, that is grammatically
> > > > written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and
> > > > shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse. Laws,
> > > > documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written
> > > > concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average
> > > > people, or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed.
> > > > Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages
> > > > in civil court. No person shall be punished for violations of laws
> > > > that: aren�t common knowledge; disagree with the macro moral
> > consensus
> > > > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first
> > > > year and passed by less than 60% of the House.
> > > > Citizens in any state are entitled to the same privileges and
> > > > immunities as the Citizens of the several states. Anyone charged with
> > > > treason or other crime in any state who flees to another state, shall,
> > > > on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled,
> > > > be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction in
> > > > such crime. No imprison-ment, slavery, nor involuntary servitude�
> > > > except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
> > > > duly convicted�shall exist within the United States or any place
> > > > subject to its jurisdiction.
> > > > The House may create new states if such aren�t within the
> > > > jurisdiction of another state that dissents, and aren�t formed by
> > > > joining two or more dissenting states or parts thereof. The House can
> > > > make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the
> > > > United States. The New Constitution shall not prejudice claims of the
> > > > USA or a particular state, and shall guarantee to each state in the
> > > > union a government that is a democracy or a republic, and shall
> > > > protect states against invasion. Upon request by the legislature or
> > > > the executive of a state (when the legislature cannot be convened),
> > > > the United States shall protect such state from domestic violence."
> > > > � John A. Armistead � Patriot
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> Dear Keith in Koln: I lived in Charlotte for over two decades. My
> > > >> father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs. One of my most
> > > >> frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge. The
> > > >> "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct
> > > >> the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to
> > > >> experience it to know it.) police state. As happened with O. J., the
> > > >> police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or
> > > >> not. The police are especially unfair to Blacks. I make it a felony
> > > >> for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is
> > > >> latter proved to be innocent. At every turn, justice demands that the
> > > >> presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury
> > > >> has reached a unanimous decision for guilt. Never again will there be
> > > >> the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence... ***
> > > >> Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not
> > > >> guilty. The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended!
>
> > > >> I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said
> > > >> anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others.
> > > >> Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System:
>
> > > >> "Article III:
>
> > > >> Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
> > > >> such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to
> > > >> interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
> > > >> rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
> > > >> laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
> > > >> Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
> > > >> as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
> > > >> from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
> > > >> such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
> > > >> executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new
> > > >> justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
> > > >> good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President,
> > > >> or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
> > > >> nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
> > > >> high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
> > > >> nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such
> > > >> shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
> > > >> yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall
> > > >> make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution�never on
> > > >> their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel
> > > >> shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
> > > >> seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters
> > > >> nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren�t
> > > >> royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently
> > > >> superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered
> > > >> lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress
> > > >> in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not
> > > >> socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the
> > > >> Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend
> > > >> State of the Union Addresses or similar events. The Public shall not
> > > >> stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be
> > > >> addressed only as: judge or justice. Judges and justices not
> > > >> respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or
> > > >> pomposity on the job shall be removed. Sessions of all trials shall
> > > >> begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: �The justice system is
> > > >> on trial.� All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for
> > > >> one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall
> > > >> not�on their own�reconsider such issue. Courtrooms shall be
> > devoid of
> > > >> gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor
> > > >> process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or
> > > >> respond patly or collectively. It is TREASON for a judge or justice
> > > >> to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy.
>
> > > >> Section 2& 3: Judges and justices shall be answerable to the
> > > >> People. On issues of internal criminality, misconduct or corruption
> > > >> within any arm of government�including the entire judicial system�
> > > >> judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing,
> > > >> favor government officials, judges, justices, nor any arm(s) of law
> > > >> enforcement, and shall hold government officials, fellow judges,
> > > >> justices, or members of law enforcement as accountable for wrongful
> > > >> acts as those outside of government. If a judge or justice fails to
> > > >> respond to a rightful petition or complaint against any government
> > > >> official or member of the justice system, such judge or justice may be
> > > >> guilty of a felony. The determination of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Article V:
Section 1, 2 & 3: Whenever 50% of the House deems necessary, the
House may propose amendments to the New Constitution, or call a
convention for proposing amendments; such may be ratified in a one
day, direct referendum of the People of all the states and
territories, provided 60% of the registered voters who vote concur.
The New Constitution and laws and treaties made under the
authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land,
and judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Nothing in a state
constitution can be to the contrary. Before taking a public office or
job, representatives, members of the legislatures, all executive and
judicial officers—of the United States and of the several states and
local governments—and all employees of those who regularly deal with
the Public, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to have read the
entire New Constitution within the last 30 days and to support such.
No religious oath or action shall be used as part of the qualification
for any office, public trust or job.
To form more perfect government, the House may authorize tests of
variations of government or laws that are, in the main, consistent
with the intents of this New Constitution. With the assent of 55% of
the legislature or legislatures of the state(s) involved, such tests
may encompass one or several states for a period of time sufficient to
evaluate performance. Subsequently, the House may vote to pass laws
of national scope on the issues tested. Conflicts arising from the
test(s) shall be resolved in the courts using this New Constitution
and apt federal laws, but with no intent at any time to punish those
persons, groups or states for their involvement in the test, done for
the common good."
— John A. Armistead — Patriot
Those who are interested are invited to read my just-published book,
"The Shortest Distance, Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B. &
N.). Thanks!
>
On Mar 11, 10:22 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: Some shallow, at Google or otherwise, changed the title of
> this post to "… Empty Rhetoric" rather than "… Empty Ritual". I was
> unable to reply and to have the latter, correct name of my original
> post be included. That's important so all excerpts from my New
> Constitution can be found under one heading.
>
> Note: The reason I used "… Empty Ritual" relates as much to religions
> and social habits as it does to our government—which is more
> interested in form and process than in getting results that will be
> beneficial to the vast majority (60% plus) of Americans.
>
> I am cutting, pasting and re posting the last two replies I made to
> Keith in Koln.
>
> Dear Keith in Koln: I lived in Charlotte for over two decades. My
> father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs. One of my most
> frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge. The
> "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct
> the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to
> experience it to know it.) police state. As happened with O. J., the
> police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or
> not. The police are especially unfair to Blacks. I make it a felony
> for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is
> latter proved to be innocent. At every turn, justice demands that the
> presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury
> has reached a unanimous decision for guilt. Never again will there be
> the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence... ***
> Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not
> guilty. The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended!
>
> I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said
> anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others.
> Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System:
>
> "Article III:
>
> Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
> such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to
> interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
> rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
> laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
> Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
> as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
> from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
> such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
> executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new
> justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
> good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President,
> or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
> nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
> high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
> nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such
> shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
> yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall
> make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution—never on
> their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel
> shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
> seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters
> nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren't
> royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently
> superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered
> lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress
> in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not
> socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the
> Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend
> State of the Union Addresses or similar events. The Public shall not
> stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be
> addressed only as: judge or justice. Judges and justices not
> respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or
> pomposity on the job shall be removed. Sessions of all trials shall
> begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: "The justice system is
> on trial." All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for
> one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall
> not—on their own—reconsider such issue. Courtrooms shall be devoid of
> gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor
> process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or
> respond patly or collectively. It is TREASON for a judge or justice
> to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy.
>
> Section 2 & 3: Judges and justices shall be answerable to the
> People. On issues of internal criminality, misconduct or corruption
> within any arm of government—including the entire judicial system—
> judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing,
> favor government officials, judges, justices, nor any arm(s) of law
> enforcement, and shall hold government officials, fellow judges,
> justices, or members of law enforcement as accountable for wrongful
> acts as those outside of government. If a judge or justice fails to
> respond to a rightful petition or complaint against any government
> official or member of the justice system, such judge or justice may be
> guilty of a felony. The determination of the above status shall be
> made following a mandatory vote in the House. Upon a yea vote of 1/3
> of the House, a national public trial, televised from the House, shall
> be held regarding all named parties—with judgment being determined via
> referendum. Whenever 60% of the registered voters who vote determine
> that there is guilt, the government officials, judges, justices and/or
> members of law enforcement shall be removed from their former
> positions and sentenced commensurate with their crimes, up to and
> including the death penalty.
> Judicial authority shall extend to all cases in law and equity
> arising under this New Constitution, the laws of the United States,
> treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all
> cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to
> all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies in
> which the United States is a party, to controversies between two or
> more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between
> Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state
> claiming lands under grants of different states or the Citizens
> thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. The Supreme Court
> shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors
> and consuls, and those in which a state is a party. In all other
> cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate juris-diction both as to
> law and to fact—with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
> House shall make. Except in cases of impeachment, the trial of all
> crimes shall be by jury in the state where said crimes were allegedly
> committed, or if otherwise, where the House directs. Misdemeanors and
> crimes occurring conjunctively shall be tried with the more serious
> crime, unless the disproving of the misdemeanor would excuse the
> crime. If either occurred in multiple jurisdictions, the trial shall
> be at a single common venue that is least compromising to the
> defense. But capital murder cases may be tried consecutively.
>
> Section 4: New trials shall be granted to anyone previously found
> guilty if there is substantive new evidence for innocence, or if there
> was an improper collection of, suppression of, or distortion of the
> facts by law enforcement, the prosecution, or by the courts. The
> resolution of such matters shall be the top priority of the courts.
> If a person is tried in a civil court for substantially the same
> offense that they previously or subsequently be acquitted of in a
> criminal case, a unanimous verdict of nine jurors shall be required
> for the civil judgment to stand. No civil agency nor governmental
> body shall independently seek to punish any person acquitted, as by
> denying to such person any fundamental rights or privileges. In civil
> trials monetary awards determined by juries shall stand. Achieving
> justice being the primary objective, such shall take precedence over
> petty procedural or legal technicalities, except those restrictions
> placed on government(s) or protecting the full civil rights of any
> citizen shall never be waived.
> Obtaining a lawyer in civil cases is as fundamental to justice as
> obtaining a lawyer in criminal cases. No statute of limitation shall
> apply to any case in which a plaintiff or defendant diligently seeks
> but can't find a lawyer. Upon request to the court, an unbiased
> lawyer shall be appointed. In federal cases licensed lawyers from any
> state or territory may be used regardless of where the trial takes
> place. The right of the People to obtain justice for any criminal or
> civil injury is fundamental. Justice departments, law enforcement
> agencies, and/or the courts shall be the instruments of justice.
> Should such in any way obstruct justice by improper procedure, bias,
> or intentional neglect of duty, such persons shall be held as
> criminally accountable as anyone else for obstruction of justice—a
> felony. Undue delay by a defendant or their counsel in a civil case—
> as a defensive tactic—is prohibited, and if present may be considered
> as evidence supporting guilt. Causing undue delay of appeals,
> similarly, is prohibited.
>
> Section 5 & 6: It is treason to foster corruption in any arm of
> government, to levy war against the USA, adhere to her enemies, or to
> give them aid and comfort. The former must show abuse of power that
> subverts the New ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://butwhatthehelldoiknow.com/2011/03/11/about-tsunamis-as-stimulus/
It THIS "stimulus"?
Larry Summers thinks so. Here's Larry, the former director of the
White House National Economic Council for President Obama and a strong
believer in Keynesian so-called "stimulus", commenting on the economic
impact of the tragic tsunami which has struck Japan…
…It may lead to some temporary increments, ironically, to GDP, as a
process of rebuilding takes place. In the wake of the earlier Kobe
earthquake, Japan actually gained some economic strength…
This is a shocking statement, or at least it should be. Though he
takes pains to wrap this preposterous claim with concern about the
loss of life, there is simply no getting around the fact that Mr.
Summers is equating destruction with "economic strength". He is,
however, simply following directly in the footsteps of John Maynard
Keynes himself who, in his 1936 treatise The General Theory, wrote:
Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth,
if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical
economics stands in the way of anything better.
Keynes repeated the "destruction as stimulus" fallacy often. In a 1940
issue of The New Republic, he wrote:
It is, it seems, politically impossible for a capitalistic democracy
to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to make the grand
experiments which would prove my case — except in war conditions
Keynes was renowned for his sharp tongue and quick wit to be sure. But
destruction-as-stimulus is not a mere shock-value rhetorical device
for expounding the Keynesian doctrine of aggregate spending. No, it is
at the absolute CENTER of the ideology. Paul Krugman, ultra-partisan
pundit, was and remains so committed to destruction-as-stimulus that
he was willing to actually break partisan ranks and agree with former
President Bush (another Keynesian):
Hate to say this, but [Bush] is right when he says:
"I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because
we're buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy
is down because we built too many houses and the economy's adjusting."
In fact, I'd say that the sources of the economy's expansion from 2003
to 2007 were, in order, the housing bubble, the war, and — very much
in third place — tax cuts.
Krugman also infamously declared the following on September 14th,
2001, regarding the destruction of the 9/11 terror attack:
These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say
this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which
brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic
good.
If that doesn't turn your stomach, it should. It IS as horrible and
misguided as it seems. Still, none of this is new for Keynesians.
World War II is, almost without fail and as Krugman alludes to above,
THE example of Keynesian-style government spending "working". I can,
in fact, recall no other example which is brought out in support of
Keynesian economics by its supporters other than WWII.
It's wrong, of course. Wars only destroy and only stimulate
war-related industries at the expense of everything else in the
process. And it should be noted that as WWII was ending there was
consensus by Keynesians that the economy would fall back into a
depression due the enormous drop in spending. In 1943, Super-Keynesian
Paul Samuelson wrote:
…were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again
planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to
demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift
from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the
thirties–then there would be ushered in the greatest period of
unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever
faced.
He couldn't have been more wrong. Instead, the economy grew and
unemployment remained low even with millions of soldiers returning
home and getting back to peaceful work. Keynesian economics should
have been relegated to the dustbin of crackpot and crank economics
fifty years ago. Instead, it lived on to help cause the 1970s
stag-flation (another event deemed impossible by Keynesian doctrine)
and other boom and bust cycles around the world… including Japan.
Going back to Japan and its economy, one of the many irony's in this
entire tsunami episode in keynesian follies is that the Japanese
government remains perhaps the single biggest peace-time experimenter
in Keynesian economics, with nothing but nation-crushing, debilitating
debt left as the result. In the 1990s, after an easy-money fueled
stock and real estate boom and bust, one virtually identical to our
own this past decade, Japan embarked on massive Keynesian "stimulus",
paving the country in concrete including many unnecessary
"infrastructure" projects like trains to nowhere. What followed was a
malaise known as "the lost decades" or, as I like to call it, the
Keynesian hangover.
The lesson here is as simple as it is old. Waste is waste. Destruction
is destruction. Costs are costs, not benefits.
We live in a world of scarcity and choice. The resources which must go
into rebuilding after war or natural disaster are resources which
could and would have gone into other things. The costs associated with
this process are not offset through some magical "mutiplier" into net
benefits. Prior to 9/11, we had two sky scrapers and a pile of raw
materials. After 9/11, we lost the buildings. At some point we may
have new building completed there, but the net loss to our society
should be obvious. Destruction is destruction.
The Failure of Aggregate Thinking
How is it that anyone believes this destruction-as-stimulus fallacy,
especially people who are considered by many to be brilliant minds?
I believe the public at large buys into the idea because the
experience of crisis on a personal level often does bring about a kind
of re-examination and renewal. And so a psychological sense of rebirth
makes these keynesian fallacies feel right. But good economics isn't
about what feels right. It is often, if not usually, the job of good
economists to explain why it is that something which feels right is
actually quite wrong. For example, mandating that a certain vital
good, like oil or healthcare, be sold at a low price (a price
control), often feels like the right thing to do. But economists
almost universally recognize that price controls have punishing and
negative effects including unnecessary shortages, rationing, wait
lists and the emergence of black markets as we've seen during the
1970s oil crisis and socialized healthcare systems. Economics isn't an
emotional nor a morality play. It's not about what feels right. It's
about how people respond to incentives and use information.
The keynesian economists I've quoted above are not likely guilty of
this emotional analysis. Rather, theirs is a peculiar failure of
methodology. They are trapped in their own mathematical models and
blinded to what economics really is all about. Summers conflates GDP,
and specifically Nominal GDP (NGDP), alternatively referred to as
"Aggregate Demand", with healthy economic activity and wealth
creation. NGDP is simply an accounting of the transactions over the
past quarter or year. Those transactions are, in normal times, signs
of exchanges for mutual gain. I trade my $500 for an iPad. I want the
iPad more than my $500. Apple wants my $500 more than their iPad.
Mutual gain. $500 gets added to NGDP.
Over the long run, NGDP does correlate strongly with real growth and
increased material well being, including happiness. But in the short
run, the period which is the focus of Keynesian analysis, the spending
which makes up NGDP accounting does not necessarily provide an
accurate measure of real wealth creation.
For starters, government spending is included in NGDP, even though the
funding is extracted from taxpayers in a zero-sum transfer. I
certainly don't want to fund wars and bailouts, yet that is what is
done with my money. That is a zero-sum transaction, not wealth
creation, and there is dead-weight loss involved which NGDP fails to
recognize or subtract. I am not better off for the government taking
my money and giving it to Goldman Sachs nor using it to occupy
Afghanistan. Governments can and do produce things of value, from
roads to schools, but the nature of the transaction is quite different
from voluntary trade, and yet it's just added in to NGDP.
Similar to government spending, the transactions/cost of rebuilding
after a catastrophe are also tallied up in NGDP. This is where the
fallacy finds its analytical root. Because the clean up efforts in
Japan are transactions (or 9/11, or the BP oil spill, or you name it)
they are added to NGDP. The destruction of wealth was never
SUBTRACTED, however. NGDP doesn't include the loss or the cost. It
also has no means of measuring what was never made instead. This is
the "unseen" loss. Instead of rebuilding destroyed schools and
neighborhoods, the same work and resources could have gone into the
building of NEW ones which would ADD to the existing supply, making
the society truly MORE wealthy.
And so, guided by a blind analysis of the economy in terms of
simplistic accounting aggregates like NGDP, Keynesians far and wide
conclude that destruction and war can, in the words of Larry Summers,
gain you "some economic strength". They're wrong. Economics is the
study of means by which human beings act and choose in pursuit of
their own ends within a world of scarcity. Economics isn't about
money. It isn't (bad) accounting or finance. Larry Summers, Paul
Krugman and their intellectual brethren aren't practicing economics at
all when they claim that tsunamis and war stimulate the economy,
they're propegating one of the oldest and most dangerous fallacies in
human history…
…but what the hell do I know?
Share and Enjoy:
21 Comments - Leave a comment!
«
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
