But why is everyone making a big boogeyman out of Iran? They have a small military. They haven't attacked anyone in a very long time. They DO say mean things about Israel and the U.S. -- is that now a crime against humanity? As far as I know, they haven't actually threatened either us or their neighbors -- but Israel and the U.S. have continually threatened to bomb Iran. The Iranian leadership don't seem like the most wonderful people on the planet, but then very few national leaders do (WE just got rid of Bush/Cheney for godssake). So what have they done wrong that deserves this tremendous fear that is being generated?

The primary source of friction is over oil. The US wants to ensure access to their hydrocarbons (oil and gas). If they decide, for whatever reason, to no longer export their oil and gas, and instead keep it for themselves, or use it for their own purposes, the US wants to be able to force the issue. We can't do that if they have nukes, since the cost of the military option would be too high.

The Iranians are keenly aware of the threat (as you say, we are constantly threatening to bomb them), and I'm sure they remember that the Shah was heavily supported by the US. A nuke gives them an insurance policy against a US attack. And, of course, a nuclear industry will provide them a source of power once the hydrocarbons run out.

One final point - oil is running out globally, not just in Iran. So saying that if Iran's oil output drops, they can just import oil from elsewhere, is not a real option. It is likely that July, 2008 will be the all-time high month for oil production. World oil production is about to decline, so the Iranian wish for nuclear power is completely rational.

Please refer to my post on page 14 - the response to Glenn's post about the Export Land Model, for basically the same info.

Of course this is about worldwide control of oil. But the old Joe's and professional blinkered propogandist shills like WinSmith and JITA are either purposely blind to that fact or are lying.

Glad we see eye to eye, although it is my experience that most people actually don't understand this kind of thing. Maybe in a forum like this they do (don't know) - if so, so much the better.

I can't really say why WinSmith and JITA, etc. are the way they are. Their mindset is completely foreign to me - trying to have a conversation with them is mostly a waste of time and energy, so I don't usually engage them.

Oh, and Krugman's great, too.

Bush big deficits bad...

Obama big deficits good...

Have you actually bothered to read Krugman? His explanation for why the Bush deficits were bad, and Obama's deficits are good, make perfect sense. Economic conditions in 2001 and in 2009 were very, very different, and that is crucial to his argument.

BTW, while I generally like Krugman, I have some serious issues with him. While he's definitely aware the serious nature of climate change, and seems to be aware of peak oil, he just can't seem to take off his economist hat. He keeps assuming we'll get 2.5% GDP growth out to 2020 or 2050 or whatever. He should know better, and that pisses me off - he's basically feeding the notion that we can be complacent about these challenges and that everything will work out allright, which is both dangerous and inexcusable.

But leave that aside for the moment. In 2001, the US economy was strong, and Clinton left Bush with budget surpluses. What did Bush do? He passes a huge tax cut, the benefits of which accruing largely to the wealthy. This increased inequality (bad) and increased deficits and debt (also bad) at a time when the economy did not need it, and at a time when we could have been reducing the debt burden of the government by leaving existing surpluses in place.

Contrast that with 2009, with the economy in the toilet, and the present danger of cascading banking failures rippling through the economy. Under these conditions, when private sector spending has collapsed, it makes perfect sense for the government to step in and pick up the slack - maintain demand, inject money into the system to keep businesses afloat and keep people employed.

We can argue about whether the Obama stimulus plan was executed well or executed poorly - that is, should the Wall St. firms have been bailed out? Should more controls have been put in place (disallowing bonuses, for example)? Should the stimulus have been bigger? Should different sectors have received more money, and others less? Certainly improvements could have been made.

But I do believe that the 2009 stimulus bill has helped to steady the economy, whatever other faults it may have.