LWM

The slogan is "Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses."

jayackroyd

Wanna armwrestle? I got a good buzz going.

Macgupta,

You need to find some Real Serious People to read. Mindless Dreck is what she does. No matter which way she blows, she always blows stupid. You can't escape the stupid, no matter how many times you re-invent yourself.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

whole lotta breedin' goin' on

On the subject of terrorism being bred from poverty - go Stuart Buck, go Mark Steyn. I'm on the worst internet connection in the world right now, so that's all.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at 12:41 PM

I sent this article to Glenn Reynolds this morning, and, lo and behold, he posted it this afternoon. In some ways, this is inspiration for me to create my own weblog. Unfortunately, there is no way I can keep up with Reynolds or the many others I try to read regularly.

Even if you don�t buy Postrel�s new spectrum of �dynamists� and �stasists�, recent events have certainly created many strange bedfellows. I find this particularly interesting and would love to hear your thoughts.

About me

I'm in the money management business. My offices are a few blocks from the former World Trade Center. Like many "warbloggers" I read, my proximity to this historic event is one of the reasons I'm recording my thoughts.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at 9:04 PM

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/2001_10.php

That would depend on whether the "coveter" was homeless and starving, now wouldn't it?

But then again, the tendency to reduce all policy questions to yes/no dichotomies and then brag that most Americans are too stupid to notice the deception is pretty much classic Shooter.

I have an Atlantic subscription. Now the only the only one I will have left is The Nation. Would it be OK to take on a Harpers subscription? I like Scott Horton a lot. Let me know, I can’t take any more of this shame.

It makes me reflect on all the flim-flams the conservatives have come up with over the years in their zeal to discredit the the income redistribution mechanisms set up by the New Deal and its successors.

You would do well to remember most of Wall St is Democrat. John Corzine and Robert Rubin spring immediately to mind.

The first of these, the appropriately named Laffer Curve, was offered as a universal solution to the inconvenience of forcing the rich to share with the poor. It was magical, and shiny, and largely wrong.

Clinton illustrated the Laffer Curve's worth with the capital tax cut of 1997, bringing in so much revenue he was able to "balance" the budget.

Well yes, said liberals, mutual funds and IRAs are clever, and could very well help people supplement their pensions, but 401K's -- apart from their portability -- don't look like such a good deal,

Wait until benefits start being cut in Social Security. I have little doubt there will also be a means test in the offing.

Well, said liberals, it's nice that we can spread the benefit of home-ownership more broadly, but we should be careful about selling things to people that they can't really afford,

I can agree with this. Poor people should not be allowed stuff they can't afford, houses, large screen TV's, new cars, credit cards, and so forth. Perhaps there should be an agency to make sure poor people spend their money wisely. You know, make sure they buy health insurance and such.

We liberals think that it might be time to revisit the Great Reagan Revolution, perhaps with a pitchfork, a torch, and a length of stout rope. What do you think?

Considering that the poor pay next to nothing in federal taxes, and the top 20% pay something like 85%, you're just wanting to grab somebody else's money. Tsk.

Who is greedier, the person that wants to keep more of what he earns, or the person that covets those earnings for himself?

Pity America's poor opponents of terrorism. In recent weeks, the papers have been full of stories of suicide bombers in Pakistan, continued terror attacks in Iraq and the increasing influence of radical elements in the Middle East. On Thursday, the State department released a report documenting Iran's plans to acquire nuclear weapons. And to judge from the reaction in the country, nobody cares.

A quick tally of the terrorists attacks in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade their constitutional right to criticize and condemn terrorists and terrorism itself, in exchange for the decreased likelihood of being attacked. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting strict anonymity at the highest classification level to all members of the government who are fighting terrorism.

Opponents of terrorism are in a state of despair. "People don't realize how damaging it is to a democratic society when people are afraid to publicly speak out against terrorism," says Mike French, national security counsel at the Protect America Union.

Or do they? Bill Meetsoch, a fireman from Cincinnati who wishes to remain anonymous because he fears terrorist reprisals for speaking out, sums up the feelings of Americans. "I have nothing to gain from speaking against terrorism and everything to lose. Why paint a target on my chest?"

These sentiments were echoed by a Congressman who would only speak off the record because they are not officially authorized to speak on this topic. "This isn't complicated people. Get to work on time, come home, bring your Mom dinner, watch TV and then go to bed. Lather rinse repeat. And most of all, mind your own business. Oh yeah, and also buy stuff and get scared when we raise the threat level."

For now, however, opponents of terrorism will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how terrorist attacks are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. "We must speak out against terrorism now. Ignoring the situation won't make it go away, it will only get worse." says the PAU's French. So far, that argument hasn't convinced the people.