Quote of the day–Dmitry Orlov

Right now the Washington economic stimulus team is putting on their Scuba gear and diving down to the engine room to try to invent a way to get a diesel engine to run on seawater. They spoke of change, but in reality they are terrified of change and want to cling with all their might to the status quo. But this game will soon be over, and they don’t have any idea what to do next.


Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I found eight quotes for my database so far and I’m only about half way through his post.–Joe]

Improving Idaho gun laws

Mike reports:


Cracks are appearing

If this and this (both via Say Uncle) pass and the Feds don’t bring in their lawyers and thugs I hope they soon start selling variants built on this:



Picture also from Say Uncle.


California, Kansas (another H/T to Say Uncle), Washington State and many other government entities are in or near economic crisis mode. If the Feds think it is politically unacceptable to allow banks and automakers to go bankrupt what are they going to think about states going bankrupt? Bailouts for local governments must be in discussion behind closed doors if not openly.


But the Feds are broke too. It just doesn’t show up quite a readily because they own the money printing presses. President Obama says he “will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year” (H/T to Tam and pdb). That can mean little more than increased taxes. If history from other countries in similar situations is any guide when things get bad enough you can expect direct confiscation of your retirement funds and savings as well as nationalization of various industries who remain profitable. The rational used will be something along the lines of “the government must not fall so anything we do to prevent it is justifiable”. They have guns and they won’t be afraid to use them to take whatever they think they “must” have. The U.S. Constitution was written with enumerated powers granted to the government but court rulings early in the last century shattered those walls. The Federal government will attempt to get more and more “control of the situation”. More planning and “guidance” from the “central committee” such as the “car czar” and more regulations for the banks (which helped bring them down to begin with) will fail in a big way. Many of the politicians and “intellectuals” have no industry (real world) experience. They have been living off of the public dole where money is obtained via the point of a gun (taxes) and they don’t have a clue (see also this comment clues, lack thereof) as to how reality really works. Obama is believed to be the savior of the world (see the I Love You Obama Woman, the response from France, as well as all the other adoration such that we have never in our lifetime seen for a U.S. president–only dictators in other countries). To the best of my knowledge he is the most inexperienced president our country has ever known, he is facing the biggest crisis our country has seen in 80 years, he is a socialist, and his advisers are socialists. His solutions are all going to involve more power and control for the Feds. More power and control in the hands of those that have only the flimsiest of connections to the real world and no experience. It’s a recipe for disaster.


The only bright spots I see are some states, such as Montana, Tennessee (see the first two links in this post), Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma (via Sebastian), and New Hampshire (via Sebastian and email from hunter006) are thinking about going all Ninth and 10th Amendment on us. There could be some serious cracks appearing in the creeping Federal tyranny we have been experiencing. Within a few years we could be (almost for certain?) looking at some new form of government. What will it be? The Orwellian vision of a a boot stamping on a human face … for ever? Or something else as certain states and people take a successful stand against the socialists?


I’ve been thinking for a long time that the world is due a new form of government. Tribal leaders, witch doctors, kings, dictators, democracies, republics, and others have all had their day (and dark nights) in the limelight. But instantaneous communication and near instantaneous travel makes for some interesting thought experiments. I’m not sure The Probability Broach type world is practical but there may be something else that is. This crisis may be the impetus to figure it out.

Quote of the day–Robert Higgs

For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability…. Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they’ll reach it, sooner or later.


Robert Higgs
Senior Fellow at Independent Institute
The Lighthouse Volume 11, Issue 7: February 16, 2009
[I was tempted to just use “rational public policy is incompatible with political viability” as the QOTD, but the mention of politicians attempting reach Hell was just too appealing.–Joe]

Live blogging the meeting with Senator Leahy

11:08 AM. The senator is late. He had another meeting in the building and it went over.


11:15 AM. Still no senator. Supposedly he was “on his way” five minutes ago. It’s not that big of a building. I’m close enough to the podium that he could easily read my Barrett Firearms shirt. I wonder if he will notice.


11:20 AM. I’m beginning to think the senator stiffed us. But what do you expect from a politician?


11:22 AM. He is being introduced now. He is in the room.


11:23 AM. He says the sound system here is better than in the Senate.


11:25 AM. He is telling stories about the wonders of the Internet.


11:27 AM. The changes going on in America are unique.


11:28 AM. He is telling us how wonderful it is that France likes the changes.


11:30 AM. There is an opening, an opportunity, to reintroduce America to the world.


11:31 AM. Opening the floor to questions. First question is from someone from Vermont who asks, “What is in the stimulas package for Vermonters?”


11:32 AM. Answer is bridge maintance, Internet access in rural areas.


11:33 AM. Someone else is asking if he is going to go forward with the Truth Commission.


11:34 AM. Telling us about previous attorney general being forced out of office. Options for now are 1) Ignore it. 2) Prosecution which could take 15 years. 3) He proposes a middle ground which is offer immunity to those that come forward and tell the truth. He compares it to the Church committee of the 70s.


11:38 AM. I don’t jump in quickly enough. Other people start asking the next question before I even realize there is an opening coming up.


11:43 AM. He says Secretary Clinton is good at building bipartisan support. Context was “truth commission”.


11:44 AM. Question and answer about judical pay raise. Probably not going to happen in this economic situation.


11:47 AM. Q: What is the exit strategy for getting out of the “business” of nationalizing banks, insurance companies, etc.?


11:49 AM. A: Make them pay back the loans as soon as they are on their feet. Hope we don’t nationalize our industries.


11:50 AM. Suggestion for a “postmortum” on what went wrong with some legislation or other government activity. Senator says they do that frequentl but it doesn’t get any press coverage.


11:52 AM. Q: What do you think of the anti-trust action against Microsoft by the European Union? A: I hope they get those Microsoft guys! THAT WAS A JOKE! I don’t know if there is press in the audience, but that was a joke.


11:55 AM. Continuing on EU answer. He says protectionism benefits never last.


11:56 AM. They ended the meeting early.

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against
tyranny. Those who have “gone along to get along” and those who have
continually voted for the “lesser of two evils” will capitulate and surrender
their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to
support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were
offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in
their eyes, liberty could not be elected.

Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008

Multiple Quotes of the Day

This is entirely separate from Joe’s “Quote of the Day” system, which is so good that I wouldn’t touch it.


One of the great (and therefore feared) minds of our time, Thomas Sowell is prolific in his generation of highly quotable phrases;



Democrats could sell refrigerators to Eskimos before Republicans could sell them blankets.


Ah, but the Republicans are only doing what the super smart people are telling them; trying to sell blankets with built-in cooling systems, to Eskimos, on the notion that both blankets and refrigerators are too extreme in their single-minded, fundamental design goals.  Who needs a blanket that keeps you warm, when you could have an ingenious blanket that does what the Democrats’ refrigerators are doing, but does it more slowly and in a less efficient manner?



I know that there are still voices of sanity around because I have counted them — on one hand.


Take heart, Mr. Sowell.  There are at least a dozen.  Actually I jest.  It’s just that you have to look far from DC, and far from the Old Media, to find them.  There are millions.  Lets not assume that just because the American press wants us to feel isolated and hopeless, that we are isolated and hopeless.



Our economic problems worry me much less than our political solutions, which have a far worse track record.


and;



One of the wonders of our times is how much more attention is paid to the living conditions of a bunch of cut-throats locked up in Guantanamo than to the leading international sponsor of terrorism getting nuclear weapons.


Well, when you put the two together (concern for cutthroats while ignoring Iran’s nuclear ambitions) along with much of the leftist dogma, it’s consistent in its opposition to American principles and its support for the enemies of Liberty worldwide.  It becomes a “wonder” only if you ascribe a shred of patriotism to the American Left.


All quotes from one short piece entitled, “Random Thoughts”.

Our New Castro

Via Limbaugh’s web site, we have a transcript of a PBS broadcast in which Obama is being compared to Fidel Castro.  It’s a favorable piece.  If you’re a 24/7 subscriber you can get the PBS audio.  I heard it this morning on the radio.



And that is, one, this notion of feeling that now we have a guy named Obama in the White House, we have President Obama now, there are many young people who are as ecstatic and as excited and as enthused about President Obama as you were about your new president, Fidel Castro.


They’re “ecstatic and excited”.  Now they have what they believe is the American version of the Cuban revolution, poised and ready to roll.  I would have thought they’d have been a little less overt about it, but I guess they think they can take off the masks now.

Questions for Senator Patrick Leahy?

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will be visiting my work next week to speak and it’s possible I might get a chance to ask him some questions. If I do get such a chance what questions/comments would be appropriate?


Background data on Leahy to help evaluate this opportunity:




  • Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. He ranks seventh in seniority in the Senate.
  • Patrick Leahy was elected to the United States Senate in 1974 and remains the only Democrat elected to this office from Vermont. At 34, he was the youngest U.S. Senator ever to be elected from the Green Mountain State. Leahy was born in Montpelier and grew up across from the Statehouse. A graduate of Saint Michael’s College in Colchester (1961), he received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center (1964). He served for eight years as State’s Attorney in Chittenden County. He gained a national reputation for his law enforcement activities and was selected (1974) as one of three outstanding prosecutors in the United States
  • As a leading member of the Appropriations Committee, Leahy is the Chairman of the Committee’s Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and also sits on its Defense, Interior, Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation-Treasury-Judiciary-Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security subcommittees.
  • Active on human rights issues, Leahy also has been the leading U.S. officeholder in the international campaign against the production, export and use of anti-personnel landmines. In 1992 Leahy wrote the first law by any government to ban the export of these weapons. He led efforts in Congress to aid mine victims by creating a special fund in the foreign aid budget, and the Leahy War Victims Fund now provides up to $14 million of relief to these victims each year. He was instrumental in establishing programs to support humanitarian demining and played a key role in pushing for an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines. He also wrote and enacted civilian war victims relief programs that are underway in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I’m just trying to understand

Suppose my family was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and some members of my family were unemployed. Would it improve matters if we borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on things like painting the house, new clothes, and a new car?


I don’t think so.


Suppose it was my little North Central Idaho town of 20K people that was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and unemployment was trending up. Would it improve matters if the town borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on random stuff?


I don’t think so.


Repeat at the large city level.


Repeat at the county level.


Repeat at the state level (California for example).


Is it going to make things better in any of those cases?


If not, then why would it make sense to do it at the national level?

I’ve been wondering when they would suggest this

Imagine a tax on blacks with the proceeds going to the KKK. Or a tax on homosexuals with the requirement that the money be given via grants to organizations purporting to find a cure for homosexuality. Do you think maybe that might upset some people?


Well, yes. I think it’s pretty clear that would upset a lot of people. And so it is with someone who claims Hunting taxes better spent on gun control:



The Reynolds Game Farm and the Department of Environmental Conservation cater to the most violent members of society – those who derive pleasure from killing helpless birds. Meanwhile, public tax dollars from the state’s general fund are used to subsidize this atrocity.


The DEC and its animal-killing arm, known as the Bureau of Wildlife, should not be given what amounts to welfare payments just so the violent sport of recreational hunting can continue. Instead, the excise taxes affixed to the cost of weapons and ammunition should be spent on programs to fight gun violence, similar to the way a portion of the taxes on tobacco are used to promote anti-smoking campaigns.


Maybe it’s not fair to compare it to taxes on blacks or homosexuals. Maybe a better analogy would be a tax on printing presses, radio and television stations, with the money going to censorship boards. Or taxes on churches with the money spent on evangelical atheist groups. Specific enumerated rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms are justifiably worthy of more protection than things like being a homosexual or black which doesn’t affect as many people.


Hence, take all the perfectly valid outrage you have over the suggestion that blacks and homosexuals should be taxed to fund those that would see them exterminated and multiple it by about a factor of two to approximate my outrage at taxes on guns be used to restriction the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

The benefits of socialized medicine

I say “medicine” but it applies to anything socialism touches. It’s just that with medicine we have more vivid and frequent examples to chose from.


Via an email from friend Kris an escapee from Australia here in the U.S., Full hospitals turning patients away in Brisbane:



emergency rooms went into meltdown yesterday as major hospitals turned away patients because they were full.


Six hospitals around the city issued capacity alerts as a flood of high priority patients threatened to overwhelm services stretched to the limits, The Courier-Mail reports.

The chaos left stressed ambulance officers trying to care for people in their vans.



“Today is out of control, our departments are in complete meltdown,” the nurse said. “What is scary is that there is no good reason for it – it isn’t a terribly hot day, it isn’t flu season, there is no outbreak of disease, we just don’t have enough resources.”

Ambulance union spokesman Kroy Day said the lack of hospital resources meant it was “only a matter of time before someone dies in a van”.

He warned that having multiple hospitals on capacity alerts meant paramedics could be left caring for patients in their vans for up to four hours.

“If this is what we are seeing on a mild summer’s day, I hate to imagine the trouble we’ll be in when flu season rolls around,” he said.

When asked about the RBWH being on bypass, Health Minister Stephen Robertson blamed a record amount of elective surgery patients.


Kris reports, “Regular occurrence in Perth at certain times of the week, or whenever it gets too hot (it never gets too cold in Perth).”


In Britain this has been a complaint for many years. People wait in the emergency room for many hours before being seen by a doctor. The politicians then required the hospitals to report on how many hours people had to wait.  The hospitals then started refusing to let the ambulances bring the patients into the hospitals until they were ready for them. This improved the numbers because the clock didn’t start ticking until the patient entered the door. The ambulances sometimes wait in the parking lot for hours with the engines running to provide temperature control. This not only threatens the life of the patient waiting for a doctor it also ties up the ambulance such that it can’t transport another patient in need of immediate care.


The basics of the problem is that when the central committee (politicians) allocate resources rather than the free market they do a much poorer job. They are further from the problem that needs to be solved and cannot respond as quickly. In a free market someone realizes they can make a profit whenever the demand starts to exceed the supply and the most successful will meet the demand quickly and for the least total cost.


Via friend Jim, who spent some time in eastern block countries during the mid 80s, I heard reports of lines for bread, shoes, toothpaste, toilet paper,  and almost every common commodity you can think of. Another friend reported to me that light bulbs were rationed out to government offices and critical businesses. Hence people would bring in their burned out bulbs from their homes and swap them with the new ones in public buildings and businesses.


And the above doesn’t even address the frosty stares I get from my physical therapist wife when I bring up more U.S. government involvement in health care. We already have too much government involvement in health care. Don’t let the Obama administration give us ambulances waiting in the parking lot too.

In the spirit of “shared values”

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign wants newly appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) demonstrate she has “evolved” beyond being a NRA A-rated politician. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is supporting him in this:



“She’s saying she realizes that she represents a statewide constituency,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “One way she could prove she has evolved is to push this issue.”


Helmke said his group is seeking a meeting with Gillibrand to ask her to support legislation to require background checks on gun sales at gun shows, commonly referred to by activists as “closing the gun-show loophole.” A message left with Gillibrand’s office was not returned Tuesday afternoon.


I don’t see Helmke or McCarthy calling on Senator Schumer to “evolve” to represent upstate New York gun owners. I guess “shared values” don’t extend in the direction of supporting the U.S. Constitution.


Since “evolution” only goes in one direction in their minds just what is it they think of NRA members and politicians that support the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms? Do they think we are chimpanzees or something?


Why doesn’t don’t they just come out and say it? Paul Helmke and the politicians who support him think gun owners are just a bunch of n***ers. If we can’t be exterminated then we need to be regulated and kept in our place.


It’s time for these bigots to arrested and charged with violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 242.

Quote of the day–Bill Clinton

Again, I will say this, it’s not that the country has moved way left. That is not what has happened…. It’s not a leftward movement. It’s a forward, communitarian movement. Shared opportunities. Shared responsibilities. Shared values, including the most important of all: “Our differences are really interesting, and they make life in America much more interesting, but our common humanity matters more.”


Bill Clinton
January 2008
Bill Clinton On Pragmatism (And Guns) In The Obama Era
[“Communitarian, shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared values” isn’t leftward? I’ll tell you what my values are and let’s see if these people can share them with me. I value individual rights. I value the right to purchase whatever arms I want, whenever I want, and from whoever I want. I value the right to be left alone to do whatever I want as long as I don’t hurt anyone else or I do it with consenting adults. I value the right to privacy in my communication with others which includes all of my financial transactions (which makes a tax on income impossible to enforce). I value the right to chose my own health care providers (including the null set). I value the right to travel freely and anonymously. And that’s just the start.


Now tell me what “shared values” we have. Mr. Clinton and his groupies just don’t get it. Nearly everything they work toward, claiming “shared values” and “shared responsibilities” are diametrically opposed to my values, the principles this country was founded upon, and the constitution which he swore to defend. Why is this impeached, disbarred, lying piece of crap still given any credence in American life?–Joe]

Representing all her constituents

Schumer and others are complaining that the new Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, doesn’t represent all her constituents and her Gun Control Stance Upsets Many and predict they will be able to twist her arm into violating the Second Amendment:



“Now, as she begins representing the whole state, I look forward to working with her to help her gain a broader understanding of the problems affecting New York City so she can be an effective advocate for all New Yorkers.”



During the press conference yesterday, Senator Schumer said he was sure Gillibrand’s stance would “evolve” once she got to know downstate issues.


When I read that I read it as “down south” issues. Further translation comes out like the following.


Sure, we have a 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery but that doesn’t mean we can’t have common-sense regulation of those n***ers. Just because up north they let them run around like they are just as good as anyone else doesn’t mean that we have to let them walk around in public like they belong in polite society. Once Gillibrand gets a “broader understanding” of the situation I’m sure she be able to be an effective advocate for both the bigots and the n***ers.

Just so you know

From our friend in Israel;



Friends:

 

Considering the number of Kassam and Grad rockets and the increasing number of mortar rounds being fired into Israel by Hamas in Gaza, I’ll keep the “Gaza War” group designation for a while longer.  As a practical matter Israel gained nothing but the world’s condemnation for its recent attempt to stop the terrorist fire.

 

The election rhetoric here is twilight-zone material.  The folks in power speechify as if they were the party in opposition.  They cry about how much change there needs to be.  Hell you are the government.  You should have done long ago what you attack (who?) for not having done.  How dumb do you think the voters are?  Obviously you think they are even dumber than I think they are. 

 

GO STEELERS!

 

Israel and the U.S. do have a lot in common.

 

And being as Israel isn’t doing anything about it right now, it isn’t “news”.

 

How hard is it to understand that since you’re going to be condemned either way, you may as well do the right thing?  The Republican Party leadership, for instance, continues to fail in that regard, though we can hope.

 

The War against the German national socialists and Imperial Japanese wasn’t won through decades of “ceasefires” for example.  It was won and they became allies after they were defeated.  Republicans; are you listening?

Details of SWAT raid against the mayors home

This happened some time ago. But the Washington Post has a very detailed story on what happened. If you like dogs bring lots of tissues to soak up some of the tears.


After all the emotion (I’m not saying this is a bad thing) is filtered out here are the nuggets I found interesting:



After the detective left, Cheye studied the document. There was nothing anywhere to indicate that Scarlata had asked the judge who signed it for permission to break his door down for a no-knock search. He hadn’t presented the judge with evidence that anyone in the household was armed and dangerous. He’d basically said that police had intercepted a box of drugs addressed to Trinity, delivered the box and watched as it was taken inside.



Americans have defended their right to privacy and the sanctity of their homes since Revolutionaries denounced British soldiers entering homes and businesses with impunity to search for contraband rum and tea and generate taxes for the British Crown. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable government searches and seizures. But civil libertarians argue that this constitutional protection has been seriously eroded in recent decades, largely as an unintended consequence of the nation’s war on drugs.



He’s read the court’s decision in one 2006 case, Hudson v. Michigan, more than once. In Hudson, the court found that even when police make a clearly illegal no-knock raid, the evidence they seize can still be used against a defendant at trial.


“In other words, police can do what they did to us with impunity” Cheye concluded. “There are no consequences, not for them.”


Thanks to reader Chet for the email pointing to this. He also asks:



Question to ponder: What is the proper defense against this sort of thing (other than getting rid of the war on drugs and the swat teams)?


I expect that if you grab a gun, you will likely be shot by overwhelming force. And you will be presumed guilty especially if they find cash, ammo, or other weapons on your property.


The gun trainers I know give the advice to say nothing, physically cooperate, and ease your anger thinking about what you are going to do with all the money you get from the lawsuit.


There are some people being pro-active by setting up sting operations where they have a house set up with lots of cameras and then turn on lots of lights to generate a abnormally high electric bill. When the cops show up with flash-bangs and guns blazing the cameras are rolling and they find nothing but public humiliation and a lawsuit waiting for them. The only thing I would add to that is that I would make sure the video was streaming to servers in other states and, where jurisdictions allowed it, I might be inclined to add a few of those “bad-guy” paper targets and some flash-bangs of my own to the mix.

Quote of the day–Jeffery Rosen

This summer, I talked to security experts on both sides of the political spectrum, and had several conversations with Chertoff, in an effort to answer the following question: Is DHS achieving its mission of making us safer? My reluctant conclusion is that, although Chertoff has performed impressively in an impossible job, the department is hard to justify with any rational analysis of costs and benefits. On the contrary, it’s arguably one of the most expensive marketing ventures in political history–an enterprise that seeks to make us feel safer instead of actually making us safer. The best argument for DHS is that the illusion of safety may itself provide tangible psychological and economic benefits: If people feel less afraid, they may be more likely to fly on planes. But even if conceived on these terms–as a more-than-$40-billion-dollar-a-year pacifier–the department is hard to defend, since there’s no good evidence that it has, in fact, calmed Americans down rather than making us more nervous.


Jeffery Rosen
December 24, 2008
Man-Made DisasterSix years on, the Department of Homeland Security is still a catastrophe.
[$40 Billion a year pacifer? Yup. That sounds about right for government work.


H/T to Bruce Schneier.–Joe]

The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008

Economics has been on a lot of people’s minds recently. Microsoft had a lay-off last week–the first ever that was motivated by external economics. I know two other gun bloggers that also dodged “the axe” in the last couple of months. I’ve had people approach me wanting information on buying guns and bulk food in a similar manner as I did just before Y2K. Federal interest rates are effectively zero. That has never happened before in my lifetime. Another economic indicator that we are in unusual circumstances is the money supply, or as Kevin put it, It’s Official: You May Now Panic. When you look at that graph note that the doubling of the money supply in the last year (yes that difficult to see spike is real, not just an artifact of the graphic) is unprecedented in the last 100 years. I attended a speech (if you want to call it that) by economist Paul Krugman yesterday–the auditorium was packed. The first hundred people or so received a free copy of his new book — The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. It’s so new it is copyright 2009 and had to come directly from the printer. I have a copy in my hands now.


This blog post is mostly to capture my notes from listening to Krugman yesterday. I’m formulating a big blog post in my mind and hope to post it this weekend.


If in italics below it means it was a direct quotes (as best as I could capture).



  • Not as bad as the 30s–yet.

  • It is as bad as the early 80s.

  • This isn’t your fathers recession. This is your grandfathers recession.

  • All of the 1st world is falling at approximately the same rate.

  • The problem with the stimulus bill is that it isn’t big enough.

  • A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. A twist on Dirksen’s quote which got a laugh.

  • I’m not feeling panicky but uneasy.

  • I thought I was intellectually prepared.

  • It’s a whole lot harder to head off a second great depression than we thought.

  • The trouble with a big tax cut is that they aren’t spent. Tax cuts are a very bad tool for this type of problem. See also this blog post by Krugman.

  • Tax cuts made permanent won’t work because we can’t afford them.

  • We should seize troubled assets, clean them up, and then sell them. Just take the hit. “We” meaning the U.S. government.

  • There are no safe options. He was responding to a comment from someone about the risks of massive government spending–which Krugman is advocating. He is of the opinion that the stimulus package should be twice the size as the one proposed and passed yesterday.

  • The thing I’m most worried about is Kindelberg’s law: When given two options we will pursue both half-heartedly. I must have the spelling wrong on “Kindelberg”. I can’t find any such “law” on the net.

I’ve read the introduction and the first chapter of his new book. He says socialism is dead and it’s obvious to everyone except a few extremists who have their heads in the sand. But in his talk yesterday he said that “universal health care” would be a good thing to spend some of the two trillion in government spending he is proposing. His attitude was that “universal health care” was obviously a good thing. You could tell from his tone and the words he used that it wasn’t even open to debate with him. I have to wonder if maybe he is one of the extremists he was talking about in his book. See also Phil’s post from day before yesterday.

Quote of the day–Paul Krugman

This isn’t your father’s recession. This is your grandfather’s recession.


Paul Krugman
January 29, 2009
Speaking to the Microsoft Political Action Committee in Redmond, Washington.
[I attended this presentation and I’ll have more on his talk later. He is also an active blogger — The Conscience of a Liberal.–Joe]