Does ‘American Sniper’ take aim at the truth?
Hollywood sold us out to the military-industrial complex
by John Myers
In a scene from Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” a helicopter gunner fires wildly at civilians scattering in rice fields below. After that comes the following exchange:
Private Joker: “How can you shoot women and children?”
Helicopter gunner: “Easy! Ya just don’t lead ‘em so much!”
As you can bet, Kubrick’s acclaimed movie got zero Pentagon support. Two other critically acclaimed Vietnam movies from that period that also got no cooperation from the U.S. military were Oliver Stone’s “Platoon” and Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now.”
It is easy to understand how these movies were denied any support from the Pentagon. Besides showing the determination of the enemy, they also showed American soldiers committing suicide, fratricide and mass killings of civilians. Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
Not so much perhaps for Stone’s movie “Platoon,” especially when you consider he was a decorated combat infantryman who served in Vietnam. Yet the truths he told in “Platoon” were discredited by the very government that sent him 8,000 miles to fight.
Overall, Hollywood has little compunction in not being truthful. Most blockbuster war movies have full U.S. military support, including the use of off-duty personal as well as the free use of everything from Black Hawk helicopters to aircraft carriers. All the Pentagon wants in return is a hand in writing the script to portray the military in the best possible light and, if possible, to get teenagers attending movies to enlist. For example, when “Top Gun” was shown, the Navy even set up tables for recruiters to catch enthralled young moviegoers leaving the theater.
Such is the case with the new record-breaking blockbuster at theaters, “American Sniper.” It is the “true story” — a term that is meaningless to our military and its Hollywood propaganda machine — of Chris Kyle, a man we are told is America’s most proficient sniper with “160 confirmed kills” to his name. It rolls off the lips of cable news anchors the way ESPN anchors might report the number of touchdowns thrown by an NFL quarterback during his career. Yet there may be a gap between the real Kyle and the fictionalized one developed by director Clint Eastwood. For example:
•Kyle tells of how he punched former Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura square in the face because Ventura was critical of the war. That never happened. Ventura sued, winning a jury award of $1.845 million.
•Eastwood suggests that the invasion of Iraq after Kyle saw the planes crash into the Twin Towers on 9/11 was the motivation that brought out Kyle’s warrior spirit. While polls have shown that 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq was involved in that attack, it is only because the Bush administration sold such lies so well.
•Kyle has been accused of fabricating a story of killing 30 armed looters from the roof of the Louisiana Superdome to protect the innocent in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
After his four tours, Kyle was killed by a disturbed veteran at a gun range. But in the book of the same name as the movie, he wrote:
•“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq.”
•“I only wish I had killed more…”
•“I loved what I did… it was fun. I had the time of my life…”
•“I don’t shoot people with Korans — I’d like to, but I don’t.”
Whether all this derision against Kyle is deserved I cannot say. I am not out to besmirch the name of a dead and even heroic American soldier. But the real question is if any of these things were true, would they be part of a Hollywood movie? Of course they wouldn’t because they too would be a casualty of war.
Canadians who know some history know who the Black Watch is. They have an illustrious past as a regiment. For the past 40 years, I’ve gotten my hands on as many World War II books as I could find and talked to many veterans of that war: Canadians, Americans and Germans. What I learned was the Black Watch was feared by the SS and for good reason. The SS was not inclined to take prisoners. After seeing one lineup of executions of Allied POWs, the Black Watch wasn’t either. Black Watch soldiers killed as many SS troops as they could lay their sights on, hands up or not. That’s not a popular notion, but it is the truth.
What I find most interesting about “American Sniper” is that it is much like the subplot within the 2009 war movie “Inglourious Basterds.” In it Joseph Goebbels has created his masterpiece, a “fact-based” movie about Fredrick Zoller, a handsome and heroic German sniper who killed more than 200 Allied soldiers in a single day. In “Inglourious Basterds,” Goebbels premiers his movie in occupied France. The premier is attended by the Nazi leadership, who chortle as Zoller racks up kill upon kill of Americans in German-occupied Europe.
Why Islam hates us
So what is “American Sniper” about? It’s about a gifted marksman killing in countries occupied under orders of the American government. The only difference, it seems to me, between the purely fiction Zoller and Kyle is that Zoller kills enemy soldiers, whereas Kyle was compelled to shoot women and children. Yes, he killed women and children who did threaten American combat lives, but two facts remain:
1.The United States occupied Iraq without that country being a clear and present danger to America; the outcrop of that occupation is a Middle East set to implode.
2.The war in Iraq that took 5,000 American lives took as many as 500,000 Iraqis — Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 but a dozen years later are under siege by the Islamic State.
The blowback from that invasion and occupation continues to this day. I have a friend who works in the Middle East. He told me he saw a teenage Arab boy with the words “Die Charlie” on his arm.
The question is not why attacks like the one in Paris on Charlie Hebdo happened but why they don’t happen more often? Of course, the answer is they will for as long as the military-industrial complex continues to wage wars on Arab lands.
What surprises me about the Islamic violence is that millions of Americans are surprised about it. One reason might be that so many Americans believe the nation is imbued with manifest destiny to remake the world the way the presidential administration believes it should be. This is ironic, considering the bridling of Americans when presidents attempt to rewrite our Constitution or change our values.
What would you do if China occupied America?
Suspend disbelief the way some radio listeners did during Orson Welles’ presentation of “War of the Worlds.” Imagine China launching an all-out attack on American cities. Imagine their use of drones, tanks and up to 2 million troops on patrol in our cities. Your business and even your home is lost, your brothers or sons rounded up and interrogated. Would you be willing to die to kill that enemy? I would.
Today, my only firearm is a Remington 12 gauge shotgun. I would be a far more effective killer wearing a bomb underneath my coat and walking up to a group of communist soldiers.
How many like-minded Americans would act the same? No doubt, many would. We wouldn’t need a holy book to tell us to do it, and we wouldn’t need the promise of 72 virgins. We would just do it.
No doubt, the Chinese back home would not understand. No doubt, Chinese filmmakers in Hong Kong would write heroic films about their troops who killed people like you and me that endangered their fine, patriotic soldiers.
Consider what 20-year war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges wrote in “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning”:
As long as we think abstractly, as long as we find in patriotism and the exuberance of War our fulfillment, we will never understand those who do battle against us, or how we are perceived by them, or finally those who do battle for us and how we should respond to it all. We will never discover who we are. We will fail to confront the capacity we all have for violence.
The problem is that thousands more people will go see “American Sniper” than will pick up a thoughtful book by someone like Hedges. After all, the theater is an escape — a place where we get to watch actors like Bradley Cooper and Tom Cruise make us proud.
Modern-day war movies are a spectacle filled with special effects and noble warriors. They take us away from our worries. They let us escape our dreary lives. Like alcohol, marijuana, gambling and sports spectacles, movies are opiates for the masses.
Therein lies the tragedy because war movies cloud our understanding of Islam — why many of us hate them and why they hate us. Until we are willing to deal with some harsh truths about the evils of Islam and how to best deal with it, we will be in a perpetual state of war. Then again, this may be what the military-industrial complex wants.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/american-sniper-take-aim-truth/
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Snow job...
Snowing Us
Becky Akers
Here’s Your Intrepid Reporter, having survived “Snowmageddon” and all the dire forecasts of the “storm of the century’s” dumping over three feet of snow on New York City. (What, do they think this is Buffalo?). In reality, about 8 or 10 inches fell.
I’m not surprised at the prediction’s errors. First, laughable inaccuracy characterizes forecasts here; if I had a nickel for every time the weather gurus—and the politicians, who, though unskilled at reading clouds and winds, apparently believe that winning elections endows them with such expertise—solemnly assure us a monstrous storm is about to hit only for it to bypass us, I could single-handedly support the Mises Institute. (His lack of training didn’t prevent New York State’s buffoon of a governor from pontificating ex cathedra from his bellybutton: he called “the blizzard … part of ‘a pattern of extreme weather that we have never seen before…’ .” Really, you despicable moron? How would you know? Where did you earn your degree in meteorology?)
And second, the National Weather Service is as incompetent as the rest of the government. I suspect (but do not know: I’ve never researched this) that its silliness infects most if not all forecasts on American weather. Several friends emailed me early yesterday, asking if we were OK given the approaching storm, and I told them that not only were we fine but greatly amused: on Sunday, the forecasts called for 38 inches of snow; by Monday morning, that had dropped to 24 inches; I predicted that we’d actually see 6 inches or so. Maybe I’ll open a “weather service”; I was certainly closer to the mark than the one Our Rulers force us to sponsor.
Ah, but never let a crisis, even a fake and manufactured one, go to waste. Inclemency is the State’s newest excuse to increase its control of us; “Juno,” exaggerated and hyped, perfectly suited that purpose. Both New York City’s mayor, Bill “Commie” de Blasio, and New York State’s governor, Andrew “No Room In My Fiefdom For Anyone Who Disagrees With Me” Cuomo, eagerly issued diktats and curfews, forcing drivers off the roads for which their taxes pay with threats of arrest and fines of $300 (wonder if we’ll receive rebates for the time that Our Rulers denied us the use of the streets), shutting down New York City’s subways (first time ever for snow; indeed, closing the subways for a “natural disaster” is a novel manifestation of dictatorship, dating only to 2011. One marvels that folks in the ten previous decades of the subway’s existence braved these underground trains regardless of blizzards, hurricanes and the odd earthquake), and in effect ordering private businesses to decamp as well. No, neither tyrant actually commanded companies to close, but when you decree a “travel ban,” prohibiting workers and customers from driving and suspending the subways, you have pretty much destroyed that day’s commerce.
Naturally, Commie couldn’t resist a potshot at entrepreneurs while dispensing his cowardly advice: “’He … asked employers to not be ‘cheapskates’ and let employees go home before all roads, bridges and mass transit shut down at 11 p.m.” And “No Room In My Fiefdom” announced, “I’d rather err on the side of caution. I don’t even think it’s a tough call…” Of course it isn’t when you’re making other people’s decisions: you don’t pay the price for a bad one nor must you cope with the consequences.
Politicians obtain their pay from our pockets no matter what. But many of New York’s poor work jobs for hourly pay. One of the city’s biggest industries, restaurants, employs an army of waiters who served no patrons and received no tips last night. Meanwhile, consider the vast disruptions the sociopathic Commie and No Room imposed on their hapless subjects: what of the vacationers or salesmen driving home, who arrived at the George Washington Bridge at 11:15, too late to cross since Our Rulers closed it at 11 and prohibited all private cars from the streets? What of the daughter whose elderly mother called at 11:30 PM to say, “Honey, I think I’m having a heart attack”? How would she reach her mom to comfort and help her? Alas, the serfs’ mundane concerns never trouble Our arrogant Rulers.
Nor are we hearing apologies from either despot now that they stand exposed for the foolish wusses they are. Indeed, No Room was already bleating this morning about his wise decision on our behalf, immobilizing, inconveniencing and impoverishing us.
None of the gutless media are blaming or criticizing, either. Not a single one has asked how bad the snow can be if you must compel your villains to stay home.
Give me a blizzard rather than a politician any time. Storms are far less heartless, vain, and thuggish.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/snowing-us/#more-533458
Becky Akers
Here’s Your Intrepid Reporter, having survived “Snowmageddon” and all the dire forecasts of the “storm of the century’s” dumping over three feet of snow on New York City. (What, do they think this is Buffalo?). In reality, about 8 or 10 inches fell.
I’m not surprised at the prediction’s errors. First, laughable inaccuracy characterizes forecasts here; if I had a nickel for every time the weather gurus—and the politicians, who, though unskilled at reading clouds and winds, apparently believe that winning elections endows them with such expertise—solemnly assure us a monstrous storm is about to hit only for it to bypass us, I could single-handedly support the Mises Institute. (His lack of training didn’t prevent New York State’s buffoon of a governor from pontificating ex cathedra from his bellybutton: he called “the blizzard … part of ‘a pattern of extreme weather that we have never seen before…’ .” Really, you despicable moron? How would you know? Where did you earn your degree in meteorology?)
And second, the National Weather Service is as incompetent as the rest of the government. I suspect (but do not know: I’ve never researched this) that its silliness infects most if not all forecasts on American weather. Several friends emailed me early yesterday, asking if we were OK given the approaching storm, and I told them that not only were we fine but greatly amused: on Sunday, the forecasts called for 38 inches of snow; by Monday morning, that had dropped to 24 inches; I predicted that we’d actually see 6 inches or so. Maybe I’ll open a “weather service”; I was certainly closer to the mark than the one Our Rulers force us to sponsor.
Ah, but never let a crisis, even a fake and manufactured one, go to waste. Inclemency is the State’s newest excuse to increase its control of us; “Juno,” exaggerated and hyped, perfectly suited that purpose. Both New York City’s mayor, Bill “Commie” de Blasio, and New York State’s governor, Andrew “No Room In My Fiefdom For Anyone Who Disagrees With Me” Cuomo, eagerly issued diktats and curfews, forcing drivers off the roads for which their taxes pay with threats of arrest and fines of $300 (wonder if we’ll receive rebates for the time that Our Rulers denied us the use of the streets), shutting down New York City’s subways (first time ever for snow; indeed, closing the subways for a “natural disaster” is a novel manifestation of dictatorship, dating only to 2011. One marvels that folks in the ten previous decades of the subway’s existence braved these underground trains regardless of blizzards, hurricanes and the odd earthquake), and in effect ordering private businesses to decamp as well. No, neither tyrant actually commanded companies to close, but when you decree a “travel ban,” prohibiting workers and customers from driving and suspending the subways, you have pretty much destroyed that day’s commerce.
Naturally, Commie couldn’t resist a potshot at entrepreneurs while dispensing his cowardly advice: “’He … asked employers to not be ‘cheapskates’ and let employees go home before all roads, bridges and mass transit shut down at 11 p.m.” And “No Room In My Fiefdom” announced, “I’d rather err on the side of caution. I don’t even think it’s a tough call…” Of course it isn’t when you’re making other people’s decisions: you don’t pay the price for a bad one nor must you cope with the consequences.
Politicians obtain their pay from our pockets no matter what. But many of New York’s poor work jobs for hourly pay. One of the city’s biggest industries, restaurants, employs an army of waiters who served no patrons and received no tips last night. Meanwhile, consider the vast disruptions the sociopathic Commie and No Room imposed on their hapless subjects: what of the vacationers or salesmen driving home, who arrived at the George Washington Bridge at 11:15, too late to cross since Our Rulers closed it at 11 and prohibited all private cars from the streets? What of the daughter whose elderly mother called at 11:30 PM to say, “Honey, I think I’m having a heart attack”? How would she reach her mom to comfort and help her? Alas, the serfs’ mundane concerns never trouble Our arrogant Rulers.
Nor are we hearing apologies from either despot now that they stand exposed for the foolish wusses they are. Indeed, No Room was already bleating this morning about his wise decision on our behalf, immobilizing, inconveniencing and impoverishing us.
None of the gutless media are blaming or criticizing, either. Not a single one has asked how bad the snow can be if you must compel your villains to stay home.
Give me a blizzard rather than a politician any time. Storms are far less heartless, vain, and thuggish.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/snowing-us/#more-533458
Non-intervention...
Why Non-Intervention?
Michael S. Rozeff
I would advocate non-intervention by the U.S. government in Ukraine even if I thought that Putin was 100% at fault in Ukraine and some kind of ogre anxious to reincorporate Ukraine into a union with Russia. It just so happens that my evaluation of the situation there differs drastically from all of those who think the U.S. should “stop” Russia or Putin. And part of the difference in this evaluation is that the U.S. has been lying and blundering so much, especially since Bush’s propaganda campaign and attack on Iraq. The U.S. has been behaving aggressively and immorally for a long time, and especially since then. But this evaluation is not central to why I advocate non-intervention.
The most basic reason for my advocating non-intervention is that I don’t want the U.S. government attempting to eradicate, counter or ameliorate evils anywhere in the world, because what this entails is a forced slavery of me, taxing me against my will, to pay for what some other people whom I do not know and haven’t made my deputies or associates decide is evil. Why should they get to make me participate in their ventures? Where’s the justice in that? I have a mind of my own.
I believe in the free personality of each of us as the highest value, above any state or body of people or collective. Collective action imposed on me by a government goes directly against that value. The world is full of evils. That is its nature. These evils are not objectively recognizable or measurable; no two people will assess them in the same way or deal with them in the same way. That too is the nature of this world. As an expression of my own personality, I would like to do my own evaluation of what is evil and what to do about it with the limited resources I have. I don’t need or want someone else making me participate in their schemes, quests and visions. When the government forces my participation, which is its habit and nature, I object. The slave objects. Why non-intervention? It’s because intervention is forced collective action that suppresses personality. It’s because I want to maintain my unique personality, my thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings, my values and my actions. I do not want to be someone else’s tool or thing.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-non-intervention/
Michael S. Rozeff
I would advocate non-intervention by the U.S. government in Ukraine even if I thought that Putin was 100% at fault in Ukraine and some kind of ogre anxious to reincorporate Ukraine into a union with Russia. It just so happens that my evaluation of the situation there differs drastically from all of those who think the U.S. should “stop” Russia or Putin. And part of the difference in this evaluation is that the U.S. has been lying and blundering so much, especially since Bush’s propaganda campaign and attack on Iraq. The U.S. has been behaving aggressively and immorally for a long time, and especially since then. But this evaluation is not central to why I advocate non-intervention.
The most basic reason for my advocating non-intervention is that I don’t want the U.S. government attempting to eradicate, counter or ameliorate evils anywhere in the world, because what this entails is a forced slavery of me, taxing me against my will, to pay for what some other people whom I do not know and haven’t made my deputies or associates decide is evil. Why should they get to make me participate in their ventures? Where’s the justice in that? I have a mind of my own.
I believe in the free personality of each of us as the highest value, above any state or body of people or collective. Collective action imposed on me by a government goes directly against that value. The world is full of evils. That is its nature. These evils are not objectively recognizable or measurable; no two people will assess them in the same way or deal with them in the same way. That too is the nature of this world. As an expression of my own personality, I would like to do my own evaluation of what is evil and what to do about it with the limited resources I have. I don’t need or want someone else making me participate in their schemes, quests and visions. When the government forces my participation, which is its habit and nature, I object. The slave objects. Why non-intervention? It’s because intervention is forced collective action that suppresses personality. It’s because I want to maintain my unique personality, my thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings, my values and my actions. I do not want to be someone else’s tool or thing.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-non-intervention/
"For example, there are 32 secessionist movements in Africa; 114 secessionist movements in Europe; 20 secessionist movements in North America; 83 secessionist movements in Asia; 11 secessionist movements in South America; and 26 secessionist movements in Oceania. Neo-Confederates are everywhere! (How did the Washington Post miss all those white hoods?!)"
More Washington Post Head-Up-Your-Arse “Reporting”
Thomas DiLorenzo
So the Washington Post sent a “reporter” to spy on the Mises Insitute’s conference on secession last weekend. As is typical of all the “mainstream media,” the “reporter” never intended to actually report on anything of substance that was said there. His obvious purpose was to smear Ron Paul, one of the speakers. He attempted to do this by writing a typical Washington Post high schoolish, juvenile garble of gossipy innuendo about how Rand Paul should be embarrassed by his father. And of course there is the overshadowing theme that anyone who even spells the word secession correctly (many mis-spell it as “succession”) is a nut.
If the “reporter” were actually an honest man and a professional, he could have easily learned that secession is quite an important idea in the minds of people all over the world. It was certainly an important idea in the minds of the former victims of the Soviet empire.
For example, there are 32 secessionist movements in Africa; 114 secessionist movements in Europe; 20 secessionist movements in North America; 83 secessionist movements in Asia; 11 secessionist movements in South America; and 26 secessionist movements in Oceania. Neo-Confederates are everywhere! (How did the Washington Post miss all those white hoods?!)
But of course Washingtonians have no real interest in anything that goes on outside of Tyson’s Corner. Thus the childishly-written article in childish language about how Rand Paul supposedly has a “Daddy problem.”
In reality, it is the Washington Post that has the problem — the “problem” is that Ron Paul is still extraordinarily active and influential in continuing to spread the ideas of freedom. When Ron Paul speaks so eloquently about freedom, it must have the same effect at the Washington Post as flashing a Christian cross in front of Dracula.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/more-washington-post-head-up-your-arse-reporting/
Thomas DiLorenzo
So the Washington Post sent a “reporter” to spy on the Mises Insitute’s conference on secession last weekend. As is typical of all the “mainstream media,” the “reporter” never intended to actually report on anything of substance that was said there. His obvious purpose was to smear Ron Paul, one of the speakers. He attempted to do this by writing a typical Washington Post high schoolish, juvenile garble of gossipy innuendo about how Rand Paul should be embarrassed by his father. And of course there is the overshadowing theme that anyone who even spells the word secession correctly (many mis-spell it as “succession”) is a nut.
If the “reporter” were actually an honest man and a professional, he could have easily learned that secession is quite an important idea in the minds of people all over the world. It was certainly an important idea in the minds of the former victims of the Soviet empire.
For example, there are 32 secessionist movements in Africa; 114 secessionist movements in Europe; 20 secessionist movements in North America; 83 secessionist movements in Asia; 11 secessionist movements in South America; and 26 secessionist movements in Oceania. Neo-Confederates are everywhere! (How did the Washington Post miss all those white hoods?!)
But of course Washingtonians have no real interest in anything that goes on outside of Tyson’s Corner. Thus the childishly-written article in childish language about how Rand Paul supposedly has a “Daddy problem.”
In reality, it is the Washington Post that has the problem — the “problem” is that Ron Paul is still extraordinarily active and influential in continuing to spread the ideas of freedom. When Ron Paul speaks so eloquently about freedom, it must have the same effect at the Washington Post as flashing a Christian cross in front of Dracula.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/more-washington-post-head-up-your-arse-reporting/
OOPS!!!
2014: Among the 3 Percent Coldest Years in 10,000 Years?
By Dr. Tim Ball
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda...
Read the rest:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/dr-tim-ball/the-truth-denierse280a8/
By Dr. Tim Ball
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda...
Read the rest:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/dr-tim-ball/the-truth-denierse280a8/
Lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling...
7 Big Lies 'American Sniper' Is Telling America
There is a backlash against the film's misleading take on sniper Chris Kyle's character.
By Zaid Jilani
The film American Sniper, based on the story of the late Navy Seal Chris Kyle, is a box office hit, setting records for an R-rated film released in January. Yet the film, the autobiography of the same name, and the reputation of Chris Kyle are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies that Hollywood didn’t see fit to clear up.
Here are seven lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling:
1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.
2. The Film Invents a Terrorist Sniper Who Works For Multiple Opposing Factions: Kyle’s primary antagonist in the film is a sniper named Mustafa. Mustafa is mentioned in a single paragraph in Kyle’s book, butthe movie blows him up into an ever-present figure and Syrian Olympic medal winner who fights for both Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and the Shia Madhi army.
3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”
4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film...
Read the rest: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/7-big-lies/
There is a backlash against the film's misleading take on sniper Chris Kyle's character.
By Zaid Jilani
The film American Sniper, based on the story of the late Navy Seal Chris Kyle, is a box office hit, setting records for an R-rated film released in January. Yet the film, the autobiography of the same name, and the reputation of Chris Kyle are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies that Hollywood didn’t see fit to clear up.
Here are seven lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling:
1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.
2. The Film Invents a Terrorist Sniper Who Works For Multiple Opposing Factions: Kyle’s primary antagonist in the film is a sniper named Mustafa. Mustafa is mentioned in a single paragraph in Kyle’s book, butthe movie blows him up into an ever-present figure and Syrian Olympic medal winner who fights for both Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and the Shia Madhi army.
3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”
4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film...
Read the rest: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/7-big-lies/
"In my opinion, Russia is in grave danger. Russians are relying on facts, and Washington is relying on propaganda. For Washington, facts are not relevant. Russian voices are small compared to Western voices."
Russia In The Cross Hairs
By Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s attack on Russia has moved beyond the boundary of the absurd into the realm of insanity.
The New Chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, has declared the Russian news service, RT, which broadcasts in multiple languages, to be a terrorist organization equivalent to Boko Haram and the Islamic State, and Standard and Poor’s just downgraded Russia’s credit rating to junk status.
Today RT International interviewed me about these insane developments.
In prior days when America was still a sane country, Lack’s charge would have led to him being laughed out of office. He would have had to resign and disappear from public life. Today in the make-believe world that Western propaganda has created, Lack’s statement is taken seriously. Yet another terrorist threat has been identified–RT. (Although both Boko Haram and the Islamic State employ terror, strictly speaking they are political organizations seeking to rule, not terror organizations, but this distinction would be over Lack’s head. Yes, I know. There is a good joke that could be made here about what Lack lacks. Appropriately named and all that.)
Nevertheless, whatever Lack might lack, I doubt he believes his nonsensical statement that RT is a terrorist organization. So what is his game?
The answer is that the Western presstitute media by becoming Ministries of Propaganda for Washington, have created large markets for RT, Press TV, and Al Jazeera. As more and more of the peoples of the world turn to these more honest news sources, Washington’s ability to fabricate self-serving explanations has declined.
RT in particular has a large Western audience. The contrast between RT’s truthful reporting and the lies spewed by US media is undermining Washington’s control of the explanation. This is no longer acceptable.
Lark has sent a message to RT. The message is: pull in your horns; stop reporting differently from our line; stop contesting the facts as Washington states them and the presstitutes report them; get on board or else.
In other words, the “free speech” that Washington and its EU, Canadian, and Australian puppet states tout means: free speech for Washington’s propaganda and lies, but not for any truth. Truth is terrorism, because truth is the major threat to Washington.
Washington would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of actually shutting down RT as its UK vassal did to Press TV. Washington simply wants to shut up RT. Lark’s message to RT is: self-censure.
In my opinion, RT already understates in its coverage and reporting as does Al Jazeera. Both news organizations understand that they cannot be too forthright, at least not too often or on too many occasions.
I have often wondered why the Russian government allows 20 percent of the Russian media to function as Washington’s fifth column inside Russia. I suspect the reason is that by tolerating Washington’s blatant propaganda inside Russia, the Russian government hopes that some factual news can be reported in the US via RT and other Russian news organizations.
These hopes, like other Russian hopes about the West, are likely to be disappointed in the end. If RT is closed down or assimilated into the Western presstitute media, nothing will be said about it, but if the Russian government closes down Washington’s agents, blatant liars all, in the Russian media, we will hear forever about the evil Russians suppressing “free speech.” Remember, the only allowable “free speech” is Washington’s propaganda.
Only time will tell whether RT decides to be closed down for telling the truth or whether it adds its voice to Washington’s propaganda.
The other item in the interview was the downgrading of Russian credit to junk status.
Standard and Poor’s downgrade is, without any doubt, a political act. It proves what we already know, and that is that the American rating firms are corrupt political operations. Remember the Investment Grade rating the American rating agencies gave to obvious subprime junk? These rating agencies are paid by Wall Street, and like Wall Street they serve the US government.
A look at the facts serves to establish the political nature of the ruling. Don’t expect the corrupt US financial press to look at the facts. But right now, we will look at the facts.
Indeed, we will put the facts in context with the US debt situation.
According to the debt clocks available online, the Russian national debt as a percentage of Russian GDP is 11 percent. The American national debt as a percentage of US GDP is 105 percent, about ten times higher. My coauthors, Dave Kranzler, John Williams, and I have shown that when measured correctly, the US debt as a percent of GDP is much higher than the official figure.
The Russian national debt per capita is $1,645. The US national debt per capita is$56,952.
The size of Russia’s national debt is $235 billion, less than one quarter of a trillion. The size of the US national debt is $18 trillion, 76.6 times larger than the Russian debt.
Putting this in perspective: according to the debt clocks, US GDP is $17.3 trillion and Russian GDP is $2.1 trillion. So, US GDP is 8 times greater than Russian GDP, but US national debt is 76.6 times greater than Russia’s debt.
Clearly, it is the US credit rating that should have been downgraded to junk status. But this cannot happen. Any US credit rating agency that told the truth would be closed and prosecuted. It wouldn’t matter what the absurd charges are. The rating agencies would be guilty of being anti-american, terrorist organizations like RT, etc. and so on, and they know it. Never expect any truth from any Wall Street denizen. They lie for a living.
According to this site: http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-united-states-debt-holders.htm#page=4 the US owes Russia as of January 2013 $162.9 billion. As the Russian national debt is $235 billion, 69 percent of the Russian national debt is covered by US debt obligations to Russia.
If this is a Russian Crisis, I am Alexander the Great.
As Russia has enough US dollar holdings to redeem its entire national debt and have a couple hundred billion dollars left, what is Russia’s problem?
One of Russia’s problems is its central bank. For the most part, Russian economists are the same neoliberal incompetents that exist in the Western world. The Russian economists are enamored of their contacts with the “superior” West and with the prestige that they image these contacts give them. As long as the Russian economists agree with the Western ones, they get invited to conferences abroad. These Russian economists are de facto American agents whether they realize it or not.
Currently, the Russian central bank is squandering the large Russian holdings of foreign reserves in support of the Western attack on the ruble. This is a fools’ game that no central bank should play. The Russian central bank should remember, or learn if it does not know, Soros’ attack on the Bank of England.
Russian foreign reserves should be used to retire the outstanding national debt, thus making Russia the only country in the world without a national debt. The remaining dollars should be dumped in coordinated actions with China to destroy the dollar, the power basis of American Imperialism.
Alternatively, the Russian government should announce that its reply to the economic warfare being conducted against Russia by the government in Washington and Wall Street rating agencies is default on its loans to Western creditors. Russia has nothing to lose as Russia is already cut off from Western credit by US sanctions. Russian default would cause consternation and crisis in the European banking system, which is exactly what Russia wants in order to break up Europe’s support of US sanctions.
In my opinion, the neoliberal economists who control Russian economic policy are a much greater threat to the sovereignty of Russia than economic sanctions and US missile bases. To survive Washington, Russia desperately needs people who are not romantic about the West.
To dramatize the situation, if President Putin will grant me Russian citizenship and allow me to appoint Michael Hudson and Nomi Prins as my deputies, I will take over the operation of the Russian central bank and put the West out of operation.
But that would require Russia taking risks associated with victory. The Atlanticist Integrationists inside the Russian government want victory for the West, not for Russia. A country imbued with treason inside the government itself has reduced chance against Washington, a determined player.
Another fifth column operating against Russia from within are the US and German funded NGOs. These American agents masquerade as “human rights organizations,” as “women’s rights organizations,” as “democracy organizations,” and whatever other cant titles that serve in a politically correct age and are unchallengeable.
Yet another threat to Russia comes from the percentage of the Russian youth who lust for the depraved culture of the West. Sexual license, pornography, drugs, self-absorption. These are the West’s cultural offerings. And, of course, killing Muslims.
If Russians want to kill people for the fun of it and to solidify US hegemony over themselves and the world, they should support “Atlanticist integration” and turn their backs on Russian nationalism. Why be Russian if you can be American serfs?
What better result for the American neoconservatives than to have Russia support Washington’s hegemony over the world? That is what the neoliberal Russian economists and the “European Integrationists” support. These Russians are willing to be American serfs in order to be part of the West and to be paid well for their treason.
As I was interviewed about these developments by RT, the news anchor kept trying to confront Washington’s charges with the facts. It is astonishing that the Russian journalists do not understand that facts have nothing to do with it. The Russian journalists, those independent of American bribes, think that facts matter in the disputes about Russian actions. They think that the assaults on civilians by the American supported Ukrainian Nazis is a fact. But, of course no such fact exists in the Western media. In the Western media the Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for violence in Ukraine.
Washington’s story line is that it is the evil Putin’s intent on restoring the Soviet Empire that is the cause of the conflict. This media line in the West has no relationship to any facts.
In my opinion, Russia is in grave danger. Russians are relying on facts, and Washington is relying on propaganda. For Washington, facts are not relevant. Russian voices are small compared to Western voices.
The lack of a Russian voice is due to Russia itself. Russia accepted living in a world controlled by US financial, legal, and telecommunication services. Living in this wold means that the only voice is Washington’s.
Why Russia agreed to this strategic disadvantage is a mystery. But as a result of this strategic mistake, Russia is at a disadvantage.
Considering the inroads that Washington has into the Russian government itself, the economically powerful oligarchs and state employees with Western connections, as well as into the Russian media and Russian youth, with the hundreds of American and German financed NGOs that can put Russians into the streets to protest any defense of Russia, Russia’s future as a sovereign country is in doubt.
The American neoconservatives are relentless. Their Russian opponent is weakened by the success inside Russia of Western cold war propaganda that portrays the US as the savior and future of mankind.
The darkness from Sauron America continues to spread over the world.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/paul-craig-roberts/from-the-absurd-to-the-insane/
By Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s attack on Russia has moved beyond the boundary of the absurd into the realm of insanity.
The New Chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, has declared the Russian news service, RT, which broadcasts in multiple languages, to be a terrorist organization equivalent to Boko Haram and the Islamic State, and Standard and Poor’s just downgraded Russia’s credit rating to junk status.
Today RT International interviewed me about these insane developments.
In prior days when America was still a sane country, Lack’s charge would have led to him being laughed out of office. He would have had to resign and disappear from public life. Today in the make-believe world that Western propaganda has created, Lack’s statement is taken seriously. Yet another terrorist threat has been identified–RT. (Although both Boko Haram and the Islamic State employ terror, strictly speaking they are political organizations seeking to rule, not terror organizations, but this distinction would be over Lack’s head. Yes, I know. There is a good joke that could be made here about what Lack lacks. Appropriately named and all that.)
Nevertheless, whatever Lack might lack, I doubt he believes his nonsensical statement that RT is a terrorist organization. So what is his game?
The answer is that the Western presstitute media by becoming Ministries of Propaganda for Washington, have created large markets for RT, Press TV, and Al Jazeera. As more and more of the peoples of the world turn to these more honest news sources, Washington’s ability to fabricate self-serving explanations has declined.
RT in particular has a large Western audience. The contrast between RT’s truthful reporting and the lies spewed by US media is undermining Washington’s control of the explanation. This is no longer acceptable.
Lark has sent a message to RT. The message is: pull in your horns; stop reporting differently from our line; stop contesting the facts as Washington states them and the presstitutes report them; get on board or else.
In other words, the “free speech” that Washington and its EU, Canadian, and Australian puppet states tout means: free speech for Washington’s propaganda and lies, but not for any truth. Truth is terrorism, because truth is the major threat to Washington.
Washington would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of actually shutting down RT as its UK vassal did to Press TV. Washington simply wants to shut up RT. Lark’s message to RT is: self-censure.
In my opinion, RT already understates in its coverage and reporting as does Al Jazeera. Both news organizations understand that they cannot be too forthright, at least not too often or on too many occasions.
I have often wondered why the Russian government allows 20 percent of the Russian media to function as Washington’s fifth column inside Russia. I suspect the reason is that by tolerating Washington’s blatant propaganda inside Russia, the Russian government hopes that some factual news can be reported in the US via RT and other Russian news organizations.
These hopes, like other Russian hopes about the West, are likely to be disappointed in the end. If RT is closed down or assimilated into the Western presstitute media, nothing will be said about it, but if the Russian government closes down Washington’s agents, blatant liars all, in the Russian media, we will hear forever about the evil Russians suppressing “free speech.” Remember, the only allowable “free speech” is Washington’s propaganda.
Only time will tell whether RT decides to be closed down for telling the truth or whether it adds its voice to Washington’s propaganda.
The other item in the interview was the downgrading of Russian credit to junk status.
Standard and Poor’s downgrade is, without any doubt, a political act. It proves what we already know, and that is that the American rating firms are corrupt political operations. Remember the Investment Grade rating the American rating agencies gave to obvious subprime junk? These rating agencies are paid by Wall Street, and like Wall Street they serve the US government.
A look at the facts serves to establish the political nature of the ruling. Don’t expect the corrupt US financial press to look at the facts. But right now, we will look at the facts.
Indeed, we will put the facts in context with the US debt situation.
According to the debt clocks available online, the Russian national debt as a percentage of Russian GDP is 11 percent. The American national debt as a percentage of US GDP is 105 percent, about ten times higher. My coauthors, Dave Kranzler, John Williams, and I have shown that when measured correctly, the US debt as a percent of GDP is much higher than the official figure.
The Russian national debt per capita is $1,645. The US national debt per capita is$56,952.
The size of Russia’s national debt is $235 billion, less than one quarter of a trillion. The size of the US national debt is $18 trillion, 76.6 times larger than the Russian debt.
Putting this in perspective: according to the debt clocks, US GDP is $17.3 trillion and Russian GDP is $2.1 trillion. So, US GDP is 8 times greater than Russian GDP, but US national debt is 76.6 times greater than Russia’s debt.
Clearly, it is the US credit rating that should have been downgraded to junk status. But this cannot happen. Any US credit rating agency that told the truth would be closed and prosecuted. It wouldn’t matter what the absurd charges are. The rating agencies would be guilty of being anti-american, terrorist organizations like RT, etc. and so on, and they know it. Never expect any truth from any Wall Street denizen. They lie for a living.
According to this site: http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-united-states-debt-holders.htm#page=4 the US owes Russia as of January 2013 $162.9 billion. As the Russian national debt is $235 billion, 69 percent of the Russian national debt is covered by US debt obligations to Russia.
If this is a Russian Crisis, I am Alexander the Great.
As Russia has enough US dollar holdings to redeem its entire national debt and have a couple hundred billion dollars left, what is Russia’s problem?
One of Russia’s problems is its central bank. For the most part, Russian economists are the same neoliberal incompetents that exist in the Western world. The Russian economists are enamored of their contacts with the “superior” West and with the prestige that they image these contacts give them. As long as the Russian economists agree with the Western ones, they get invited to conferences abroad. These Russian economists are de facto American agents whether they realize it or not.
Currently, the Russian central bank is squandering the large Russian holdings of foreign reserves in support of the Western attack on the ruble. This is a fools’ game that no central bank should play. The Russian central bank should remember, or learn if it does not know, Soros’ attack on the Bank of England.
Russian foreign reserves should be used to retire the outstanding national debt, thus making Russia the only country in the world without a national debt. The remaining dollars should be dumped in coordinated actions with China to destroy the dollar, the power basis of American Imperialism.
Alternatively, the Russian government should announce that its reply to the economic warfare being conducted against Russia by the government in Washington and Wall Street rating agencies is default on its loans to Western creditors. Russia has nothing to lose as Russia is already cut off from Western credit by US sanctions. Russian default would cause consternation and crisis in the European banking system, which is exactly what Russia wants in order to break up Europe’s support of US sanctions.
In my opinion, the neoliberal economists who control Russian economic policy are a much greater threat to the sovereignty of Russia than economic sanctions and US missile bases. To survive Washington, Russia desperately needs people who are not romantic about the West.
To dramatize the situation, if President Putin will grant me Russian citizenship and allow me to appoint Michael Hudson and Nomi Prins as my deputies, I will take over the operation of the Russian central bank and put the West out of operation.
But that would require Russia taking risks associated with victory. The Atlanticist Integrationists inside the Russian government want victory for the West, not for Russia. A country imbued with treason inside the government itself has reduced chance against Washington, a determined player.
Another fifth column operating against Russia from within are the US and German funded NGOs. These American agents masquerade as “human rights organizations,” as “women’s rights organizations,” as “democracy organizations,” and whatever other cant titles that serve in a politically correct age and are unchallengeable.
Yet another threat to Russia comes from the percentage of the Russian youth who lust for the depraved culture of the West. Sexual license, pornography, drugs, self-absorption. These are the West’s cultural offerings. And, of course, killing Muslims.
If Russians want to kill people for the fun of it and to solidify US hegemony over themselves and the world, they should support “Atlanticist integration” and turn their backs on Russian nationalism. Why be Russian if you can be American serfs?
What better result for the American neoconservatives than to have Russia support Washington’s hegemony over the world? That is what the neoliberal Russian economists and the “European Integrationists” support. These Russians are willing to be American serfs in order to be part of the West and to be paid well for their treason.
As I was interviewed about these developments by RT, the news anchor kept trying to confront Washington’s charges with the facts. It is astonishing that the Russian journalists do not understand that facts have nothing to do with it. The Russian journalists, those independent of American bribes, think that facts matter in the disputes about Russian actions. They think that the assaults on civilians by the American supported Ukrainian Nazis is a fact. But, of course no such fact exists in the Western media. In the Western media the Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for violence in Ukraine.
Washington’s story line is that it is the evil Putin’s intent on restoring the Soviet Empire that is the cause of the conflict. This media line in the West has no relationship to any facts.
In my opinion, Russia is in grave danger. Russians are relying on facts, and Washington is relying on propaganda. For Washington, facts are not relevant. Russian voices are small compared to Western voices.
The lack of a Russian voice is due to Russia itself. Russia accepted living in a world controlled by US financial, legal, and telecommunication services. Living in this wold means that the only voice is Washington’s.
Why Russia agreed to this strategic disadvantage is a mystery. But as a result of this strategic mistake, Russia is at a disadvantage.
Considering the inroads that Washington has into the Russian government itself, the economically powerful oligarchs and state employees with Western connections, as well as into the Russian media and Russian youth, with the hundreds of American and German financed NGOs that can put Russians into the streets to protest any defense of Russia, Russia’s future as a sovereign country is in doubt.
The American neoconservatives are relentless. Their Russian opponent is weakened by the success inside Russia of Western cold war propaganda that portrays the US as the savior and future of mankind.
The darkness from Sauron America continues to spread over the world.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/paul-craig-roberts/from-the-absurd-to-the-insane/
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
“‘I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting,’” Chomsky said, quoting Kyle. “‘Savage, despicable, evil — that’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy savages. There was really no other way to describe what we encountered there.’”
Noam Chomsky: ‘American Sniper’ teaches you to hate the ‘damn savages’ the US murders every day
Scott Kaufman
Famed linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky took some time during a Cambridge, Massachusetts event hosted by The Baffler to discuss the film American Sniper and what its popularity says about the American people.
He began by reading a glowing review of the film in The New York Times that began by insulting “America’s coastal intelligentsia, which has busied itself with chatter over little-seen art dramas while everyday Americans showed up en masse for a patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days.”
“What was the patriotic, pro-family film that so entranced everyday Americans?” Chomsky asked by way of response. “It’s about the most deadly sniper in American history, a guy named Chris Kyle, who claims to have used his skills to have killed several hundred people in Iraq.”
“In [American Sniper], he describes what the experience was like, so I’ll quote him. His first kill was a woman, who walked into the street with a grenade in her hand as the Marines attacked her village. Chris Kyle killed her with a single shot, and he explains how he felt about it.”
“‘I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting,’” Chomsky said, quoting Kyle. “‘Savage, despicable, evil — that’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy savages. There was really no other way to describe what we encountered there.’”
After admitting that he had not seen the film, only read numerous reviews, Chomsky noted that The New Yorker “said it was great, kept to the cinematic values, said it was well done — but there were others who found it appalling, including [Newsweek's] Jeff Stein, a former US intelligence officer who wrote a very critical review, keeping to the content.”
Stein recalled a visit he had made to a “clubhouse for snipers, where to quote him, ‘the barroom walls featured white-on-black Nazi SS insignia, and other Wehrmacht regalia. The Marine shooters clearly identified with the marksmen of the world’s most infamous killing machine, rather than regular troops.”
“Getting back to Chris Kyle,” Chomsky continued, “he regarded his first kill as a terrorist — this woman who walked in the street — but we can’t really attribute that to the mentality of a psychopathic killer, because we’re all tarred by the same brush insofar as we tolerate or keep silent about official policy.”
“Now, that [sniper] mentality helps explain why it’s so easy to ignore what is most clearly the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern history, if not ever — Obama’s global assassination campaign, the drone campaign, which officially is aimed at murdering people who are suspected of maybe someday planning to harm us.”
“I’d advise you to read some of the transcripts with drone operators,” Chomsky said. “They’re harrowing — the guys who are sitting in front of computers in Las Vegas,” drawing a comparison to the manner in which Kyle dehumanized his targets.
Watch Noam Chomsky discuss American Sniper via WGBH below.
Link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/noam-chomsky-american-sniper-teaches-you-to-hate-the-damn-savages-the-us-murders-every-day/
Scott Kaufman
Famed linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky took some time during a Cambridge, Massachusetts event hosted by The Baffler to discuss the film American Sniper and what its popularity says about the American people.
He began by reading a glowing review of the film in The New York Times that began by insulting “America’s coastal intelligentsia, which has busied itself with chatter over little-seen art dramas while everyday Americans showed up en masse for a patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days.”
“What was the patriotic, pro-family film that so entranced everyday Americans?” Chomsky asked by way of response. “It’s about the most deadly sniper in American history, a guy named Chris Kyle, who claims to have used his skills to have killed several hundred people in Iraq.”
“In [American Sniper], he describes what the experience was like, so I’ll quote him. His first kill was a woman, who walked into the street with a grenade in her hand as the Marines attacked her village. Chris Kyle killed her with a single shot, and he explains how he felt about it.”
“‘I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting,’” Chomsky said, quoting Kyle. “‘Savage, despicable, evil — that’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy savages. There was really no other way to describe what we encountered there.’”
After admitting that he had not seen the film, only read numerous reviews, Chomsky noted that The New Yorker “said it was great, kept to the cinematic values, said it was well done — but there were others who found it appalling, including [Newsweek's] Jeff Stein, a former US intelligence officer who wrote a very critical review, keeping to the content.”
Stein recalled a visit he had made to a “clubhouse for snipers, where to quote him, ‘the barroom walls featured white-on-black Nazi SS insignia, and other Wehrmacht regalia. The Marine shooters clearly identified with the marksmen of the world’s most infamous killing machine, rather than regular troops.”
“Getting back to Chris Kyle,” Chomsky continued, “he regarded his first kill as a terrorist — this woman who walked in the street — but we can’t really attribute that to the mentality of a psychopathic killer, because we’re all tarred by the same brush insofar as we tolerate or keep silent about official policy.”
“Now, that [sniper] mentality helps explain why it’s so easy to ignore what is most clearly the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern history, if not ever — Obama’s global assassination campaign, the drone campaign, which officially is aimed at murdering people who are suspected of maybe someday planning to harm us.”
“I’d advise you to read some of the transcripts with drone operators,” Chomsky said. “They’re harrowing — the guys who are sitting in front of computers in Las Vegas,” drawing a comparison to the manner in which Kyle dehumanized his targets.
Watch Noam Chomsky discuss American Sniper via WGBH below.
Link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/noam-chomsky-american-sniper-teaches-you-to-hate-the-damn-savages-the-us-murders-every-day/
"They complain about things like money and influence in politics, while spending enormous sums of money in order to gain influence in politics. They decry the flight of the poor while living like pharaohs. But they’re outspoken liberals, so they’re heroes."
The liberals’ ‘heroes’
by Ben Crystal
I seldom pay much attention the supermarket tabloids. It’s not that I’m not interested in Oprah Winfrey’s secret plan to splice Bat Boy’s DNA with space aliens to create a body double that will take over the world. It’s just that I figure that I have little chance of surviving the coming Oprah-Bat Boy-alien war, and I’m wondering if whatever I forgot is close enough for me to make a mad dash to aisle 2 and back without infuriating the guy behind me in line. It’s not that I don’t want to see the latest pictures of Kim and Kanye West’s baby; it’s just that I’m trying to figure out if I have enough beer for the week. And It’s not that I don’t care what Pitbull said to T.I. at the annual Hip-Hop Awards “ho-down” (and they do mean “ho”). Actually, I’ll admit it: I don’t care what Pitbull said to T.I.
However, one of the fashion glossies caught my eye during a recent trip to the grocery store. Just to the right of the candy bars, batteries and mini-containers of hand sanitizer was the latest edition of Elle. Staring back at me from the cover, with what I’m guessing was either smoldering sensuality or gastrointestinal discomfort, was the reputed face of modern liberal feminism, Lena Dunham. Once I shook off the surprise of learning that Elle is still a thing, I realized I was looking at the ultimate demise of actual women’s rights — and a perfect example of why the Democrats not only took a beating last fall, but are likely to take another one in 2016.
Dunham is famous, a consequence of critical adoration of her HBO series “Girls.” She’s politically influential, thanks to the creepy-to-everyone-except-Democrats “First Time” video extolling the virtues of now-President Barack Obama. And she’s a magazine cover model because — well — she’s famous and politically influential. But she’s also the same person who not only falsely accused an innocent man of rape in order to push book sales, but admitted in that book that she molested her own sister. Full disclosure: I watched an episode of Dunham’s acclaimed show. It reminded me of a bush-league “Seinfeld.” Nearly every character is more a collection of neuroses than an actual human; and despite its New York City setting, black people are either invisible or plot devices. She’s a liar. She’s a slanderer. If her show is anything to go by, she’s a racist. And — and I don’t think this can be overstated — she’s a child molester. But because she’s an outspoken liberal, she’s a hero.
And Dunham is not alone in the pantheon of liberal demigods and demigoddesses. Obese war profiteer Michael Moore managed to squeeze his considerable bulk back into the spotlight recently. According to Moore, the Chris Kyle biopic “American Sniper” lionizes “cowards.” Moore, who piled up a reported $50 million by vilifying excessive wealth and who enjoys first-rate American healthcare by vilifying American healthcare, has never been closer to combat than the occasional scramble for the last bear claw. It’s bad enough that Moore thought it was possible to burnish his own reputation by insulting men like Kyle. It’s far worse that Moore thought it was necessary to do so. It’s absolutely appalling that anyone took him seriously. But because he’s an outspoken liberal, he’s a hero.
Of course, Dunham and Moore are merely avatars of a much larger collection of freaks, weirdos and creeps who would likely be shunned by society were it not for the fact that their politics list drastically to the port side. Al Franken, who headed the writing staff of “Saturday Night Live” during the very lean post-Eddie Murphy days, is now a U.S. Senator. Gwyneth Paltrow, who once unfavorably compared “cheese from a can” to smoking crack, recently hosted Obama at a first-class fiesta. The Oscar-winning actress said: “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.” Jay-Z and Beyonce are virtual royalty. Sen. Elizabeth Warren considers her ancestors’ cheekbones sufficient proof of her Native American roots. Hillary Clinton is planning to run for president on the “I dodged imaginary sniper fire, but what difference does it make?” ticket. The Rev. Al Sharpton is practically the co-president.
Behind the famous faces are the big-money heavyweights. These are the new world order types who flocked to Davos, Switzerland, for the annual World Economic Forum. They required an air force of private jets to congregate with their super-wealthy pals. Once in Davos, they were treated to another ridiculous slide show about so-called “global warming” by former Vice President Al Gore. Already wealthy by virtue of his family’s tobacco farming, Gore is awash in dough. In fact, his biggest score was the sale of his failed “Current TV” cable network to Al Jazeera. Gore used Current to push his pet science-fiction project. Al Jazeera is owned by the House of Thani. In case that rings no bells, the House of Thani is the royal family of Qatar. Mr. Global Warming sold Global Warming TV to Big Oil.
And then there’s former President Bill Clinton, who has somehow managed to avoid being mentioned on the sex offender registries despite fighting a personal war on women since the days when global warming was known as global cooling. Yet new reports on the Virgin Islands estate of Democrat sugar daddy Jeffrey Epstein indicate Clinton was not only a friend of the disgraced billionaire, he hitched a ride on Epstein’s private 727 to what the media are now calling “Sex Fiend Island.” I’ll leave the goings-on at Epstein’s tropical man cave and massage parlor to your imagination; this is the Personal Liberty Digest™, not HBO.
Yet Clinton remains one of — if not the – most popular Democrats in America. Dunham’s creepy mendacity hasn’t prevented the abortionistas from continuing to sing her praises. Moore’s hypocrisy hasn’t prevented the “America last” crowd from cheering his proclamations. Paltrow’s intellectual vacuity hasn’t prevented Obama from grubbing for cash at her 24-carat, canned cheese-free trough. And as I noted earlier, little needs to be said about Sharpton that isn’t already common knowledge. I understand why the Democrats gravitate toward people of this caliber. They share their values, twisted though they might be. More importantly, they have a lot of money, which they’re willing to share it in return for photo ops, stays in the Lincoln bedroom and/or political influence. The thing is that for all they share in common with people like Obama, they have absolutely nothing in common with the people upon whom they rely for book sales, viewership and the money they need to keep living their lifestyle of the rich and famous. They complain about things like money and influence in politics, while spending enormous sums of money in order to gain influence in politics. They decry the flight of the poor while living like pharaohs. But they’re outspoken liberals, so they’re heroes.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/liberals-heroes/
by Ben Crystal
I seldom pay much attention the supermarket tabloids. It’s not that I’m not interested in Oprah Winfrey’s secret plan to splice Bat Boy’s DNA with space aliens to create a body double that will take over the world. It’s just that I figure that I have little chance of surviving the coming Oprah-Bat Boy-alien war, and I’m wondering if whatever I forgot is close enough for me to make a mad dash to aisle 2 and back without infuriating the guy behind me in line. It’s not that I don’t want to see the latest pictures of Kim and Kanye West’s baby; it’s just that I’m trying to figure out if I have enough beer for the week. And It’s not that I don’t care what Pitbull said to T.I. at the annual Hip-Hop Awards “ho-down” (and they do mean “ho”). Actually, I’ll admit it: I don’t care what Pitbull said to T.I.
However, one of the fashion glossies caught my eye during a recent trip to the grocery store. Just to the right of the candy bars, batteries and mini-containers of hand sanitizer was the latest edition of Elle. Staring back at me from the cover, with what I’m guessing was either smoldering sensuality or gastrointestinal discomfort, was the reputed face of modern liberal feminism, Lena Dunham. Once I shook off the surprise of learning that Elle is still a thing, I realized I was looking at the ultimate demise of actual women’s rights — and a perfect example of why the Democrats not only took a beating last fall, but are likely to take another one in 2016.
Dunham is famous, a consequence of critical adoration of her HBO series “Girls.” She’s politically influential, thanks to the creepy-to-everyone-except-Democrats “First Time” video extolling the virtues of now-President Barack Obama. And she’s a magazine cover model because — well — she’s famous and politically influential. But she’s also the same person who not only falsely accused an innocent man of rape in order to push book sales, but admitted in that book that she molested her own sister. Full disclosure: I watched an episode of Dunham’s acclaimed show. It reminded me of a bush-league “Seinfeld.” Nearly every character is more a collection of neuroses than an actual human; and despite its New York City setting, black people are either invisible or plot devices. She’s a liar. She’s a slanderer. If her show is anything to go by, she’s a racist. And — and I don’t think this can be overstated — she’s a child molester. But because she’s an outspoken liberal, she’s a hero.
And Dunham is not alone in the pantheon of liberal demigods and demigoddesses. Obese war profiteer Michael Moore managed to squeeze his considerable bulk back into the spotlight recently. According to Moore, the Chris Kyle biopic “American Sniper” lionizes “cowards.” Moore, who piled up a reported $50 million by vilifying excessive wealth and who enjoys first-rate American healthcare by vilifying American healthcare, has never been closer to combat than the occasional scramble for the last bear claw. It’s bad enough that Moore thought it was possible to burnish his own reputation by insulting men like Kyle. It’s far worse that Moore thought it was necessary to do so. It’s absolutely appalling that anyone took him seriously. But because he’s an outspoken liberal, he’s a hero.
Of course, Dunham and Moore are merely avatars of a much larger collection of freaks, weirdos and creeps who would likely be shunned by society were it not for the fact that their politics list drastically to the port side. Al Franken, who headed the writing staff of “Saturday Night Live” during the very lean post-Eddie Murphy days, is now a U.S. Senator. Gwyneth Paltrow, who once unfavorably compared “cheese from a can” to smoking crack, recently hosted Obama at a first-class fiesta. The Oscar-winning actress said: “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.” Jay-Z and Beyonce are virtual royalty. Sen. Elizabeth Warren considers her ancestors’ cheekbones sufficient proof of her Native American roots. Hillary Clinton is planning to run for president on the “I dodged imaginary sniper fire, but what difference does it make?” ticket. The Rev. Al Sharpton is practically the co-president.
Behind the famous faces are the big-money heavyweights. These are the new world order types who flocked to Davos, Switzerland, for the annual World Economic Forum. They required an air force of private jets to congregate with their super-wealthy pals. Once in Davos, they were treated to another ridiculous slide show about so-called “global warming” by former Vice President Al Gore. Already wealthy by virtue of his family’s tobacco farming, Gore is awash in dough. In fact, his biggest score was the sale of his failed “Current TV” cable network to Al Jazeera. Gore used Current to push his pet science-fiction project. Al Jazeera is owned by the House of Thani. In case that rings no bells, the House of Thani is the royal family of Qatar. Mr. Global Warming sold Global Warming TV to Big Oil.
And then there’s former President Bill Clinton, who has somehow managed to avoid being mentioned on the sex offender registries despite fighting a personal war on women since the days when global warming was known as global cooling. Yet new reports on the Virgin Islands estate of Democrat sugar daddy Jeffrey Epstein indicate Clinton was not only a friend of the disgraced billionaire, he hitched a ride on Epstein’s private 727 to what the media are now calling “Sex Fiend Island.” I’ll leave the goings-on at Epstein’s tropical man cave and massage parlor to your imagination; this is the Personal Liberty Digest™, not HBO.
Yet Clinton remains one of — if not the – most popular Democrats in America. Dunham’s creepy mendacity hasn’t prevented the abortionistas from continuing to sing her praises. Moore’s hypocrisy hasn’t prevented the “America last” crowd from cheering his proclamations. Paltrow’s intellectual vacuity hasn’t prevented Obama from grubbing for cash at her 24-carat, canned cheese-free trough. And as I noted earlier, little needs to be said about Sharpton that isn’t already common knowledge. I understand why the Democrats gravitate toward people of this caliber. They share their values, twisted though they might be. More importantly, they have a lot of money, which they’re willing to share it in return for photo ops, stays in the Lincoln bedroom and/or political influence. The thing is that for all they share in common with people like Obama, they have absolutely nothing in common with the people upon whom they rely for book sales, viewership and the money they need to keep living their lifestyle of the rich and famous. They complain about things like money and influence in politics, while spending enormous sums of money in order to gain influence in politics. They decry the flight of the poor while living like pharaohs. But they’re outspoken liberals, so they’re heroes.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/liberals-heroes/
"So, what should the Republicans do? They claim to be for lower taxes. Here is their chance to prove it." Don't hold your breath...
Obama’s Tax Proposals: A Libertarian Analysis
By Laurence M. Vance
For those of you who did not watch President Obama’s State of the Union address, you can read a transcript here, as I have. I neither watched it nor the five earlier addresses he gave. And neither did I watch any of Bush’s State of the Union addresses. Actually, I have never wasted my time watching any president’s State of the Union address.
I have always loathed Obama for his radical associations, his life spent in the service of racial preference, his aberrant Christianity, and his belief in the redistribution of wealth. I loathed Obama when he was in the Senate for being one of the most radical left-wing Senators in history. And I have loathed him as president for his corporatism, warmongering, contempt for the Constitution, Obamacare, and expanding the welfare/warfare/national security/surveillance state. In fact, if you substitute Bushcare (the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) for Obamacare, these are the same reasons I loathed George W. Bush.
This does not mean, however, that we should just dismiss outright all of the proposals Obama made in his State of the Union address—and especially those that relate to taxes.
It should be remembered that as part of a deal to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts, which were due to expire at the end of 2010, Obama signed into law the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act” (TRUIRJCA) that not only extended the current tax brackets for two years, but reduced the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent for one year. In one of his radio addresses in August of 2011, Obama proposed extending the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut for another year. Surprisingly, Republicans weren’t too enthusiastic about the idea. The rate cut was eventually extended until the end of 2012.
So, instead of being summarily dismissed, Obama’s tax proposals need to be subject to a libertarian analysis. Not a liberal, conservative, Democratic, Republican, progressive, centrist, or moderate analysis, but a libertarian one. A libertarian analysis is not based on whether a particular proposal makes the tax code more or less progressive, is revenue neutral, closes loopholes, raises taxes on the rich, makes sure everyone pays their fair share, simplifies the tax code, expands refundable tax credits, helps the poor, benefits the middle class, decreases income inequality, increases government revenue, or relates to the Laffer curve. These are some of the things an analysis by the above groups would be based on.
A libertarian analysis, on the other hand, is based on certain libertarian axioms of taxation:
The best tax is always the lightest. ~ Jean-Baptiste Say
There cannot be a good tax nor a just one; every tax rests its case on compulsion. ~ Frank Chodorov
Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. ~ Murray Rothbard
There can be no such thing as “fairness in taxation.” Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a “fair tax” is therefore every bit as absurd as that of “fair theft.” ~ Murray Rothbard
Since the very fact of taxation is an interference with the free market, it is particularly incongruous and incorrect for advocates of a free market to advocate uniformity of taxation. ~ Murray Rothbard
A deduction or exemption is only a “loophole” if you assume that the government owns 100% of everyone’s income and that allowing some of that income to remain untaxed constitutes an irritating “loophole.” Murray Rothbard
The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. ~ Ron Paul
Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? ~ Lew Rockwell
Any decrease in taxes or tax rates is a good thing and any increase is a bad thing and any increase in tax deductions or credits is a good thing and any decrease is a bad thing. ~ Laurence Vance
So, what are Obama’s tax proposals? In his State of the Union address, the president didn’t say much about taxes:
Middle-class economics means helping working families feel more secure in a world of constant change. That means helping folks afford childcare, college, health care, a home, retirement – and my budget will address each of these issues, lowering the taxes of working families and putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.
My plan will make quality childcare more available, and more affordable, for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America – by creating more slots and a new tax cut of up to $3,000 per child, per year.
As Americans, we don’t mind paying our fair share of taxes, as long as everybody else does, too. But for far too long, lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes that let some corporations pay nothing while others pay full freight. They’ve riddled it with giveaways the superrich don’t need, denying a break to middle class families who do.
Let’s close loopholes so we stop rewarding companies that keep profits abroad, and reward those that invest in America. Let’s use those savings to rebuild our infrastructure and make it more attractive for companies to bring jobs home. Let’s simplify the system and let a small business owner file based on her actual bank statement, instead of the number of accountants she can afford. And let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top one percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth. We can use that money to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college. We need a tax code that truly helps working Americans trying to get a leg up in the new economy, and we can achieve that together.
The $3,000 child tax credit was the only specific thing the president said about taxes in his State of the Union address.
However, just a few days before, the White House issued a Fact Sheet on the president’s tax-reform proposals. They consist of:
Increasing the top capital gains tax rate to 28 percent.
Eliminating the “stepped-up” basis on assets that lets bequests go to heirs without being subject to capital gains tax.
Imposing a 0.07 percent tax on the liabilities of financial firms with assets over $50 billion.
Instituting a tax credit of up to $500 for families in which both spouses work.
Making permanent the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit from the stimulus package.
Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and increasing the income level at which the credit phases out for workers without children and noncustodial parents.
Tripling the maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to up to $3,000 per child for families with children under five and making the full credit available to families with incomes up to $120,000.
Repealing the student loan interest deduction for new borrowers.
Taxing the earnings portion of funds withdrawn from 529 education savings plans.
Eliminating the Hope and Lifetime Learning education tax credits.
Eliminating the tuition and fees tax deduction.
Making permanent and expanding the American Opportunity Tax Credit by making it available to part-time students, allowing taxpayers to claim the credit for five years, excluding the value of a student’s Pell Grant from modified adjusted gross income, indexing the credit to inflation, and increasing the refundable portion of the credit to $1,500.
Exempting the value of forgiven student loans from taxation.
Capping the total amount at $3.4 million that an individual can accumulate in IRA and 401(k) type accounts.
Instituting a tax credit of between $1,500 and $4,500 for employers offering new or auto-IRAs.
Subjecting these proposals to a libertarian analysis yields the following.
Because all new taxes are always bad, the tax on banks and the tax on 529 plan withdrawals should not be imposed.
Because increased tax rates are always bad, the capital gains tax rate should not be raised.
Because tax deductions are always good, the student loan interest deduction should not be eliminated.
Because new tax credits are always good, the $500 credit for families and the credit for employers offering IRAs should be instituted.
Because existing tax credits are always good, the temporary expansion of the Earned Income, Child, and American Opportunity Tax Credits should be make permanent.
Because existing tax credits are always good, the Hope and Lifetime Learning education tax credits should not be eliminated unless they truly are superseded by an expanded American Opportunity Tax Credit.
Because higher tax credits are always good, the increase in the amount and expanded availability of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit should be instituted and the American Opportunity Tax Credit should be indexed to inflation.
Because refundable tax credits are a form of welfare, which is always bad, the refundability of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit should be eliminated.
Because paying more in taxes is always bad, the “stepped-up” basis on assets should not be eliminated and the amount an individual can accumulate in an IRA should not be limited.
Because excluding or exempting anything from taxation is always good, the value of Pell Grants should be excluded from income and the value of forgiven student loans should be excluded from taxation.
It is that simple.
So, what should the Republicans do? They claim to be for lower taxes. Here is their chance to prove it.
The Republicans should neither increase an existing tax nor institute a new tax—any tax for any reason. They should neither eliminate nor reduce a tax deduction or credit—any deduction or credit for any reason. They should pass a standalone bill for each one of the president’s tax proposals that keeps or increases money in the pockets of Americans and out of the hands of Uncle Sam. They should not fall for the trick of trading something for a tax increase or deduction/credit decrease of any kind.
What will the Republicans do? Judging from their poor track record for the past sixty years they will certainly blow their opportunity. Like bundling a new tax credit with an attempt to repeal Obamacare that will obviously be vetoed. I hope I am wrong. But they don’t call the GOP the stupid party for nothing.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/laurence-m-vance/el-supremos-theft-proposals/
By Laurence M. Vance
For those of you who did not watch President Obama’s State of the Union address, you can read a transcript here, as I have. I neither watched it nor the five earlier addresses he gave. And neither did I watch any of Bush’s State of the Union addresses. Actually, I have never wasted my time watching any president’s State of the Union address.
I have always loathed Obama for his radical associations, his life spent in the service of racial preference, his aberrant Christianity, and his belief in the redistribution of wealth. I loathed Obama when he was in the Senate for being one of the most radical left-wing Senators in history. And I have loathed him as president for his corporatism, warmongering, contempt for the Constitution, Obamacare, and expanding the welfare/warfare/national security/surveillance state. In fact, if you substitute Bushcare (the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) for Obamacare, these are the same reasons I loathed George W. Bush.
This does not mean, however, that we should just dismiss outright all of the proposals Obama made in his State of the Union address—and especially those that relate to taxes.
It should be remembered that as part of a deal to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts, which were due to expire at the end of 2010, Obama signed into law the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act” (TRUIRJCA) that not only extended the current tax brackets for two years, but reduced the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent for one year. In one of his radio addresses in August of 2011, Obama proposed extending the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut for another year. Surprisingly, Republicans weren’t too enthusiastic about the idea. The rate cut was eventually extended until the end of 2012.
So, instead of being summarily dismissed, Obama’s tax proposals need to be subject to a libertarian analysis. Not a liberal, conservative, Democratic, Republican, progressive, centrist, or moderate analysis, but a libertarian one. A libertarian analysis is not based on whether a particular proposal makes the tax code more or less progressive, is revenue neutral, closes loopholes, raises taxes on the rich, makes sure everyone pays their fair share, simplifies the tax code, expands refundable tax credits, helps the poor, benefits the middle class, decreases income inequality, increases government revenue, or relates to the Laffer curve. These are some of the things an analysis by the above groups would be based on.
A libertarian analysis, on the other hand, is based on certain libertarian axioms of taxation:
The best tax is always the lightest. ~ Jean-Baptiste Say
There cannot be a good tax nor a just one; every tax rests its case on compulsion. ~ Frank Chodorov
Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. ~ Murray Rothbard
There can be no such thing as “fairness in taxation.” Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a “fair tax” is therefore every bit as absurd as that of “fair theft.” ~ Murray Rothbard
Since the very fact of taxation is an interference with the free market, it is particularly incongruous and incorrect for advocates of a free market to advocate uniformity of taxation. ~ Murray Rothbard
A deduction or exemption is only a “loophole” if you assume that the government owns 100% of everyone’s income and that allowing some of that income to remain untaxed constitutes an irritating “loophole.” Murray Rothbard
The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. ~ Ron Paul
Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? ~ Lew Rockwell
Any decrease in taxes or tax rates is a good thing and any increase is a bad thing and any increase in tax deductions or credits is a good thing and any decrease is a bad thing. ~ Laurence Vance
So, what are Obama’s tax proposals? In his State of the Union address, the president didn’t say much about taxes:
Middle-class economics means helping working families feel more secure in a world of constant change. That means helping folks afford childcare, college, health care, a home, retirement – and my budget will address each of these issues, lowering the taxes of working families and putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.
My plan will make quality childcare more available, and more affordable, for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America – by creating more slots and a new tax cut of up to $3,000 per child, per year.
As Americans, we don’t mind paying our fair share of taxes, as long as everybody else does, too. But for far too long, lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes that let some corporations pay nothing while others pay full freight. They’ve riddled it with giveaways the superrich don’t need, denying a break to middle class families who do.
Let’s close loopholes so we stop rewarding companies that keep profits abroad, and reward those that invest in America. Let’s use those savings to rebuild our infrastructure and make it more attractive for companies to bring jobs home. Let’s simplify the system and let a small business owner file based on her actual bank statement, instead of the number of accountants she can afford. And let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top one percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth. We can use that money to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college. We need a tax code that truly helps working Americans trying to get a leg up in the new economy, and we can achieve that together.
The $3,000 child tax credit was the only specific thing the president said about taxes in his State of the Union address.
However, just a few days before, the White House issued a Fact Sheet on the president’s tax-reform proposals. They consist of:
Increasing the top capital gains tax rate to 28 percent.
Eliminating the “stepped-up” basis on assets that lets bequests go to heirs without being subject to capital gains tax.
Imposing a 0.07 percent tax on the liabilities of financial firms with assets over $50 billion.
Instituting a tax credit of up to $500 for families in which both spouses work.
Making permanent the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit from the stimulus package.
Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and increasing the income level at which the credit phases out for workers without children and noncustodial parents.
Tripling the maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to up to $3,000 per child for families with children under five and making the full credit available to families with incomes up to $120,000.
Repealing the student loan interest deduction for new borrowers.
Taxing the earnings portion of funds withdrawn from 529 education savings plans.
Eliminating the Hope and Lifetime Learning education tax credits.
Eliminating the tuition and fees tax deduction.
Making permanent and expanding the American Opportunity Tax Credit by making it available to part-time students, allowing taxpayers to claim the credit for five years, excluding the value of a student’s Pell Grant from modified adjusted gross income, indexing the credit to inflation, and increasing the refundable portion of the credit to $1,500.
Exempting the value of forgiven student loans from taxation.
Capping the total amount at $3.4 million that an individual can accumulate in IRA and 401(k) type accounts.
Instituting a tax credit of between $1,500 and $4,500 for employers offering new or auto-IRAs.
Subjecting these proposals to a libertarian analysis yields the following.
Because all new taxes are always bad, the tax on banks and the tax on 529 plan withdrawals should not be imposed.
Because increased tax rates are always bad, the capital gains tax rate should not be raised.
Because tax deductions are always good, the student loan interest deduction should not be eliminated.
Because new tax credits are always good, the $500 credit for families and the credit for employers offering IRAs should be instituted.
Because existing tax credits are always good, the temporary expansion of the Earned Income, Child, and American Opportunity Tax Credits should be make permanent.
Because existing tax credits are always good, the Hope and Lifetime Learning education tax credits should not be eliminated unless they truly are superseded by an expanded American Opportunity Tax Credit.
Because higher tax credits are always good, the increase in the amount and expanded availability of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit should be instituted and the American Opportunity Tax Credit should be indexed to inflation.
Because refundable tax credits are a form of welfare, which is always bad, the refundability of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit should be eliminated.
Because paying more in taxes is always bad, the “stepped-up” basis on assets should not be eliminated and the amount an individual can accumulate in an IRA should not be limited.
Because excluding or exempting anything from taxation is always good, the value of Pell Grants should be excluded from income and the value of forgiven student loans should be excluded from taxation.
It is that simple.
So, what should the Republicans do? They claim to be for lower taxes. Here is their chance to prove it.
The Republicans should neither increase an existing tax nor institute a new tax—any tax for any reason. They should neither eliminate nor reduce a tax deduction or credit—any deduction or credit for any reason. They should pass a standalone bill for each one of the president’s tax proposals that keeps or increases money in the pockets of Americans and out of the hands of Uncle Sam. They should not fall for the trick of trading something for a tax increase or deduction/credit decrease of any kind.
What will the Republicans do? Judging from their poor track record for the past sixty years they will certainly blow their opportunity. Like bundling a new tax credit with an attempt to repeal Obamacare that will obviously be vetoed. I hope I am wrong. But they don’t call the GOP the stupid party for nothing.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/laurence-m-vance/el-supremos-theft-proposals/
"Demagogues will claim that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter, which even MIT economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden is shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation — and if the corporation is to survive — it will have one of three responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. The important point is that only people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, bear the burden of any tax. Corporations are merely government tax collectors."
Defense Against Demagogues
By Walter E. Williams
When gasoline sold at record prices, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, “I think it’s time to say to these people, ‘Stop ripping off the American people.'” When the average price of regular gas was close to $4 a gallon, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for Congress to look into breaking up giant oil companies. The claim was that “Wall Street greed (was) fueling high gas prices.”
Today in some places, gasoline is selling for less than $2 a gallon, less than half of its peak price in 2008. The idiotic explanation that attributed high oil prices to greed might now be adjusted to argue that big oil executives have been morally rejuvenated. They are no longer greedy and no longer want to rip off the American people. My guess is that everyone in the oil business would like to charge higher prices. Plus, there’s no legal prohibition against big and powerful Exxon Mobil’s selling its regular gas today for $4 a gallon. Exxon stations don’t do so because the market wouldn’t bear that price.
The attempt to explain human behavior by greed is foolhardy. If we define greed as people wanting much more than what they have, then everyone is greedy. Show me someone who doesn’t want more of something, be it cars, houses, clothing, food, peace, admiration, love or war. The fact that people want more is responsible for most of the good things that get done. You’ll see Texas cattle ranchers this winter making the personal sacrifice of going out in blizzards to care for their herds. As a result of their sacrifice, New Yorkers will have beef on their grocery shelves. Which do you think best explains cattlemen’s behavior, concern about New Yorkers or their wanting more for themselves?
This year’s congressional efforts to reduce corporate income tax will create great opportunities for demagogues. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 34 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The effect of high corporate taxes gives corporations incentives to lower their effective tax rates by engaging in activities that lower their competitiveness and to shift profits to foreign subsidiaries.
Demagogues will claim that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter, which even MIT economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden is shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation — and if the corporation is to survive — it will have one of three responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. The important point is that only people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, bear the burden of any tax. Corporations are merely government tax collectors.
Here’s a tax-related question: Which worker receives the higher pay, a worker on a road construction project moving dirt with a shovel or a worker moving dirt atop a giant earthmover? If you said the guy on the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It’s not because he’s unionized or that employers just love earthmover operators. It’s because he is more productive; he has more physical capital with which to work.
It’s not rocket science to conclude that whatever lowers the cost of capital formation will enable companies to buy more capital, such as earthmovers. The result is that workers will be more productive and earn higher wages. Policies that raise the cost of capital formation — such as capital gains taxes, low depreciation allowances and high corporate income taxes — reduce capital formation and do not serve the interests of workers, investors or consumers.
The greatest tool in the arsenal of demagogues is economic ignorance, which my colleagues in George Mason University’s economics department battle against tooth and nail.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/walter-e-williams/demagogic-lies/
By Walter E. Williams
When gasoline sold at record prices, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, “I think it’s time to say to these people, ‘Stop ripping off the American people.'” When the average price of regular gas was close to $4 a gallon, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for Congress to look into breaking up giant oil companies. The claim was that “Wall Street greed (was) fueling high gas prices.”
Today in some places, gasoline is selling for less than $2 a gallon, less than half of its peak price in 2008. The idiotic explanation that attributed high oil prices to greed might now be adjusted to argue that big oil executives have been morally rejuvenated. They are no longer greedy and no longer want to rip off the American people. My guess is that everyone in the oil business would like to charge higher prices. Plus, there’s no legal prohibition against big and powerful Exxon Mobil’s selling its regular gas today for $4 a gallon. Exxon stations don’t do so because the market wouldn’t bear that price.
The attempt to explain human behavior by greed is foolhardy. If we define greed as people wanting much more than what they have, then everyone is greedy. Show me someone who doesn’t want more of something, be it cars, houses, clothing, food, peace, admiration, love or war. The fact that people want more is responsible for most of the good things that get done. You’ll see Texas cattle ranchers this winter making the personal sacrifice of going out in blizzards to care for their herds. As a result of their sacrifice, New Yorkers will have beef on their grocery shelves. Which do you think best explains cattlemen’s behavior, concern about New Yorkers or their wanting more for themselves?
This year’s congressional efforts to reduce corporate income tax will create great opportunities for demagogues. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 34 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The effect of high corporate taxes gives corporations incentives to lower their effective tax rates by engaging in activities that lower their competitiveness and to shift profits to foreign subsidiaries.
Demagogues will claim that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter, which even MIT economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden is shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation — and if the corporation is to survive — it will have one of three responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. The important point is that only people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, bear the burden of any tax. Corporations are merely government tax collectors.
Here’s a tax-related question: Which worker receives the higher pay, a worker on a road construction project moving dirt with a shovel or a worker moving dirt atop a giant earthmover? If you said the guy on the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It’s not because he’s unionized or that employers just love earthmover operators. It’s because he is more productive; he has more physical capital with which to work.
It’s not rocket science to conclude that whatever lowers the cost of capital formation will enable companies to buy more capital, such as earthmovers. The result is that workers will be more productive and earn higher wages. Policies that raise the cost of capital formation — such as capital gains taxes, low depreciation allowances and high corporate income taxes — reduce capital formation and do not serve the interests of workers, investors or consumers.
The greatest tool in the arsenal of demagogues is economic ignorance, which my colleagues in George Mason University’s economics department battle against tooth and nail.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/walter-e-williams/demagogic-lies/
Falling Prices are “Really Bad” for You...Yeah, right!!!
Mainstream Financial Press Promotes Economic Illiteracy
By Pater Tenebrarum
Falling Prices are “Really Bad” for You
It is quite comical how the idea that falling prices are somehow bad for society is continually pushed by the establishment and its mouthpieces. We imagine it is not easy to create propaganda in support of such an obvious absurdity. No doubt every consumer in the world would love nothing more than genuine price deflation. After all, what can possibly be bad about one’s income and savings stretching further and buying more, rather than fewer goods and services?
Consumers and savers all over the world must surely be scratching their heads by now after hearing for the umpteenth time that it will be somehow “good” for them if their real incomes decline and the value of their savings is eroded by rising prices. What exactly is the justification for this nonsense?
Bloomberg has a strongly pro-interventionist, pro-central planning editorial line. This is possibly the case because its owner is a well-known champagne socialist and nannycrat. However, the statist quo is actually supported by a great many prominent financial publications, including the Financial Times, the Economist, and several others. As far as we are aware, there are no major mainstream financial media supporting genuine free market capitalism.
Following the ECB’s decision to further devalue the ailing and misbegotten euro, Bloomberg apparently felt compelled to explain to the hoi-polloi why exactly their instinctive rejection of the modern monetary debasement orthodoxy is all wrong. An article entitled “Why Falling Prices Are Actually a Really Bad Thing”,presents the convoluted thinking on the topic in the form of soundbite bullet points. Think about the vast economic damage you are doing citizen, before you rush out to avail yourself of the latest discounts offered by evil price cutters like WalMart!
Here is our small contribution to blunting this propaganda effort. Below is a list of the assertions made in the Bloomberg article, followed by our rebuttals:
1. “When shoppers see persistent price declines, they hold out on buying things. They ask, will I get a better deal next week, next month, next year? As a result, consumer spending flails. For most nations, that’s a big chunk of their economy, and any slowdown in consumption threatens growth.”
One wonders how even a single computer or smart phone could ever be sold if consumers were to “hold out on buying things” when their prices decline. After all, it is absolutely certain that one will get a better deal by waiting for next year’s model – so the price declines are certainly “persistent”. And yet, the technology sector in the widest sense is one of the strongest growing industries on the planet.
Meanwhile, since savings are the sine qua non precondition for capital formation, economic growth is not “threatened” at all by consumers postponing consumption in favor of saving. The opposite is true; without saving, there could be no economic growth whatsoever. All that changes when consumers save more and consume less is the pattern of spending in the economy. While less is spent on present consumption, the savings that are thereby attained are employed in investing in production, which turn makes more consumption possible in the future.
2. “Businesses behave pretty much the same way. They postpone buying raw materials, hoping to get a break on costs, and delay investing in that splashy new facility or hiring an extra hand.”
Again, we have to ask: if that is true, why are technology companies, or any other companies for that matter, investing even a single cent? Ever since capitalist production processes have been adopted, the real prices of raw materials have been declining. This has evidently not kept businesses from investing and hiring workers. The above assertion misconceives the essence of economic calculation. It is not relevant for businesses whether the nominal prices of final goods are rising or falling. What is important for them is the spread between the cost of inputs and and the expected prices of the output that will be produced.
3. “Additionally, their pricing power — the ability to charge more — vanishes. That makes it harder for them to grow profits.”
We’re not sure why this was made an “additional” point, since it is basically the same assertion already made in point 2. Once again, business profitability is certainly not dependent on “the ability to charge more” due to an inflationary environment. It is solely dependent on the difference between input costs and output prices. Money supply inflation makes some business propositions look more profitable than others by distorting relative prices – but that only leads to malinvestment of scarce capital and capital consumption. Nothing can be gained by this.
4. “Lower profits = less money to go around to workers. Employees don’t get the raises they were expecting, they cut back on spending even more, and the ugly cycle repeats. That’s why they call it a deflationary spiral.”
Profits don’t depend on inflation (see points 2 and 3) and neither do wages. To this it must be kept in mind that what counts are real, not nominal wages. When consumer prices decline and wages remain the same, employees will continually get “raises”, and will have no reason whatsoever to cut back on their spending. On the contrary, rising real wages will enable them to buy more goods and services over time. Hence, there is no “ugly cycle”. Note that it is capital accumulation that makes it possible for real wages to rise in a free market economy. The more capital is invested per worker, the higher real wages will tend to be. In a progressing free market economy (i.e., an economy without central bank intervention), the prices of consumer goods will decline over time, reflecting the increase in economic productivity. Increasing productivity at the same time ensures that companies will be able to afford paying ever higher real wages. “Deflationary spiral” sure sounds scary, but there is really nothing to fear.
5. “The sad thing is, even when prices are falling, the amount you owe doesn’t. Borrowers get crushed under the weight of that debt. In a mild scenario, companies and consumers hold back on other purchases to continue meeting their obligations. When things get really bad, they go bust altogether.”
Here we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. The inflationary fiat money system has impoverished the middle class and the poorer strata of society and many have been forced to go into more and more debt as a result. In a free market economy this impoverishment would not have occurred. Consequently debt would not pose such a big problem.
However, if the sustainability of debt is dependent on inflation (which in a fiat money system inevitably implies that more and more debt will have to be created), then this reveals ipso facto that this debt is unsound. In other words, it will eventually be subject to default anyway, in one way or another. The question is only whether it will happen sooner or later, and what precise shape the default will take. There can be outright default, or indirect default via hyperinflation and the repudiation of the currency. Creditors will lose big either way.
What is not mentioned in the Bloomberg article is the fact that the biggest debtors by far are governments, and that inflation works like a “hidden tax” that allows them to surreptitiously appropriate wealth from those forced to use the currencies they issue. Savers, retirees as well as widows and orphans are especially vulnerable to this theft , i.e., all those who act prudently or are depending on some form of fixed income.
Price Stabilization and Bubbles
The sixth and last point is a bit different from the rest:
“6. Policy makers usually have an antidote to economic slowdowns, but it’s trickier when interest rates are already near zero. That’s exactly the situation with the ECB and much of the industrial world. That forces officials to turn to unconventional tools.”
Here the author is transitioning from trying to explain why declining prices are really, really bad for us, to making excuses for central bankers and their current mad-cap policies (it was of course clear that the article would eventually progress to this point).
The notion that the economy needs “policy makers” dispensing “antidotes” is just as misguided as the rest of the article. The economy would work best if left alone. No central planner can possibly improve on the outcomes that an unhampered free market economy would deliver. Moreover, officials are certainly not “forced” to turn to so-called unconventional tools. Given that money printing cannot possibly enhance economic prosperity, these policies are only likely to eventually produce an intractable economic catastrophe. One should not forget that we have already had several previews of this upcoming event.
Japan’s central bank has implemented unconventional policies on several occasions, with the same result every time: as soon as the policies were discontinued, an economic downturn reasserted itself. The crisis of 2008 was also the result of heavy monetary pumping, which was implemented as an “antidote” to the slowdown following the bursting of the technology bubble of the 1990s. While the “zero bound problem” was not yet an issue at the time outside of Japan, central banks lowered interest rates to extremely low levels and kept them there for an extended time period. Money supply and credit expansion took off as a result (at one point in 2001, the US true money supply grew at an annual rate of more than 21%), which caused another bubble in asset prices and an unhealthy boom concentrated in the real estate sector. The result: a few boom years which were widely mistaken for a sound economic recovery, followed by a crash that nearly wiped out the financial system. In the end, the economy was in even worse shape than before the “antidote” had been administered.
People may have forgotten that the same arguments that are forwarded in favor of monetary pumping today were forwarded after the bursting of the technology bubble as well. The “price stabilization policy” was used as the justification for generating massive money supply and credit growth. Incidentally, the same excuse also accompanied the monetary pumping of the “roaring 20s”.
Conclusion
It is not true that declining prices of consumer goods are economically harmful. In fact, the period in US history during which the by far greatest spurt in real economic growth occurred, was an era of mild price deflation (approx. 1866 to 1913). It is certainly true that those carrying large debts would find repayment more difficult if the real value of these debts were to increase. However, to the extent that this is the case, the soundness of such debt is questionable anyway. Lastly, if the age of centrally planned inflation masquerading as “price stability” were to end and be replaced by an unhampered market economy characterized by mild price deflation, it is a good bet that economic power in society would shift. Currently, a small group is benefiting from inflation to the detriment of society at large, which is a major reason for the constant barrage of pro-inflation propaganda in the media. Don’t be taken in by it.
Read more:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/falling-prices-are-bad-for-society/
By Pater Tenebrarum
Falling Prices are “Really Bad” for You
It is quite comical how the idea that falling prices are somehow bad for society is continually pushed by the establishment and its mouthpieces. We imagine it is not easy to create propaganda in support of such an obvious absurdity. No doubt every consumer in the world would love nothing more than genuine price deflation. After all, what can possibly be bad about one’s income and savings stretching further and buying more, rather than fewer goods and services?
Consumers and savers all over the world must surely be scratching their heads by now after hearing for the umpteenth time that it will be somehow “good” for them if their real incomes decline and the value of their savings is eroded by rising prices. What exactly is the justification for this nonsense?
Bloomberg has a strongly pro-interventionist, pro-central planning editorial line. This is possibly the case because its owner is a well-known champagne socialist and nannycrat. However, the statist quo is actually supported by a great many prominent financial publications, including the Financial Times, the Economist, and several others. As far as we are aware, there are no major mainstream financial media supporting genuine free market capitalism.
Following the ECB’s decision to further devalue the ailing and misbegotten euro, Bloomberg apparently felt compelled to explain to the hoi-polloi why exactly their instinctive rejection of the modern monetary debasement orthodoxy is all wrong. An article entitled “Why Falling Prices Are Actually a Really Bad Thing”,presents the convoluted thinking on the topic in the form of soundbite bullet points. Think about the vast economic damage you are doing citizen, before you rush out to avail yourself of the latest discounts offered by evil price cutters like WalMart!
Here is our small contribution to blunting this propaganda effort. Below is a list of the assertions made in the Bloomberg article, followed by our rebuttals:
1. “When shoppers see persistent price declines, they hold out on buying things. They ask, will I get a better deal next week, next month, next year? As a result, consumer spending flails. For most nations, that’s a big chunk of their economy, and any slowdown in consumption threatens growth.”
One wonders how even a single computer or smart phone could ever be sold if consumers were to “hold out on buying things” when their prices decline. After all, it is absolutely certain that one will get a better deal by waiting for next year’s model – so the price declines are certainly “persistent”. And yet, the technology sector in the widest sense is one of the strongest growing industries on the planet.
Meanwhile, since savings are the sine qua non precondition for capital formation, economic growth is not “threatened” at all by consumers postponing consumption in favor of saving. The opposite is true; without saving, there could be no economic growth whatsoever. All that changes when consumers save more and consume less is the pattern of spending in the economy. While less is spent on present consumption, the savings that are thereby attained are employed in investing in production, which turn makes more consumption possible in the future.
2. “Businesses behave pretty much the same way. They postpone buying raw materials, hoping to get a break on costs, and delay investing in that splashy new facility or hiring an extra hand.”
Again, we have to ask: if that is true, why are technology companies, or any other companies for that matter, investing even a single cent? Ever since capitalist production processes have been adopted, the real prices of raw materials have been declining. This has evidently not kept businesses from investing and hiring workers. The above assertion misconceives the essence of economic calculation. It is not relevant for businesses whether the nominal prices of final goods are rising or falling. What is important for them is the spread between the cost of inputs and and the expected prices of the output that will be produced.
3. “Additionally, their pricing power — the ability to charge more — vanishes. That makes it harder for them to grow profits.”
We’re not sure why this was made an “additional” point, since it is basically the same assertion already made in point 2. Once again, business profitability is certainly not dependent on “the ability to charge more” due to an inflationary environment. It is solely dependent on the difference between input costs and output prices. Money supply inflation makes some business propositions look more profitable than others by distorting relative prices – but that only leads to malinvestment of scarce capital and capital consumption. Nothing can be gained by this.
4. “Lower profits = less money to go around to workers. Employees don’t get the raises they were expecting, they cut back on spending even more, and the ugly cycle repeats. That’s why they call it a deflationary spiral.”
Profits don’t depend on inflation (see points 2 and 3) and neither do wages. To this it must be kept in mind that what counts are real, not nominal wages. When consumer prices decline and wages remain the same, employees will continually get “raises”, and will have no reason whatsoever to cut back on their spending. On the contrary, rising real wages will enable them to buy more goods and services over time. Hence, there is no “ugly cycle”. Note that it is capital accumulation that makes it possible for real wages to rise in a free market economy. The more capital is invested per worker, the higher real wages will tend to be. In a progressing free market economy (i.e., an economy without central bank intervention), the prices of consumer goods will decline over time, reflecting the increase in economic productivity. Increasing productivity at the same time ensures that companies will be able to afford paying ever higher real wages. “Deflationary spiral” sure sounds scary, but there is really nothing to fear.
5. “The sad thing is, even when prices are falling, the amount you owe doesn’t. Borrowers get crushed under the weight of that debt. In a mild scenario, companies and consumers hold back on other purchases to continue meeting their obligations. When things get really bad, they go bust altogether.”
Here we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. The inflationary fiat money system has impoverished the middle class and the poorer strata of society and many have been forced to go into more and more debt as a result. In a free market economy this impoverishment would not have occurred. Consequently debt would not pose such a big problem.
However, if the sustainability of debt is dependent on inflation (which in a fiat money system inevitably implies that more and more debt will have to be created), then this reveals ipso facto that this debt is unsound. In other words, it will eventually be subject to default anyway, in one way or another. The question is only whether it will happen sooner or later, and what precise shape the default will take. There can be outright default, or indirect default via hyperinflation and the repudiation of the currency. Creditors will lose big either way.
What is not mentioned in the Bloomberg article is the fact that the biggest debtors by far are governments, and that inflation works like a “hidden tax” that allows them to surreptitiously appropriate wealth from those forced to use the currencies they issue. Savers, retirees as well as widows and orphans are especially vulnerable to this theft , i.e., all those who act prudently or are depending on some form of fixed income.
Price Stabilization and Bubbles
The sixth and last point is a bit different from the rest:
“6. Policy makers usually have an antidote to economic slowdowns, but it’s trickier when interest rates are already near zero. That’s exactly the situation with the ECB and much of the industrial world. That forces officials to turn to unconventional tools.”
Here the author is transitioning from trying to explain why declining prices are really, really bad for us, to making excuses for central bankers and their current mad-cap policies (it was of course clear that the article would eventually progress to this point).
The notion that the economy needs “policy makers” dispensing “antidotes” is just as misguided as the rest of the article. The economy would work best if left alone. No central planner can possibly improve on the outcomes that an unhampered free market economy would deliver. Moreover, officials are certainly not “forced” to turn to so-called unconventional tools. Given that money printing cannot possibly enhance economic prosperity, these policies are only likely to eventually produce an intractable economic catastrophe. One should not forget that we have already had several previews of this upcoming event.
Japan’s central bank has implemented unconventional policies on several occasions, with the same result every time: as soon as the policies were discontinued, an economic downturn reasserted itself. The crisis of 2008 was also the result of heavy monetary pumping, which was implemented as an “antidote” to the slowdown following the bursting of the technology bubble of the 1990s. While the “zero bound problem” was not yet an issue at the time outside of Japan, central banks lowered interest rates to extremely low levels and kept them there for an extended time period. Money supply and credit expansion took off as a result (at one point in 2001, the US true money supply grew at an annual rate of more than 21%), which caused another bubble in asset prices and an unhealthy boom concentrated in the real estate sector. The result: a few boom years which were widely mistaken for a sound economic recovery, followed by a crash that nearly wiped out the financial system. In the end, the economy was in even worse shape than before the “antidote” had been administered.
People may have forgotten that the same arguments that are forwarded in favor of monetary pumping today were forwarded after the bursting of the technology bubble as well. The “price stabilization policy” was used as the justification for generating massive money supply and credit growth. Incidentally, the same excuse also accompanied the monetary pumping of the “roaring 20s”.
Conclusion
It is not true that declining prices of consumer goods are economically harmful. In fact, the period in US history during which the by far greatest spurt in real economic growth occurred, was an era of mild price deflation (approx. 1866 to 1913). It is certainly true that those carrying large debts would find repayment more difficult if the real value of these debts were to increase. However, to the extent that this is the case, the soundness of such debt is questionable anyway. Lastly, if the age of centrally planned inflation masquerading as “price stability” were to end and be replaced by an unhampered market economy characterized by mild price deflation, it is a good bet that economic power in society would shift. Currently, a small group is benefiting from inflation to the detriment of society at large, which is a major reason for the constant barrage of pro-inflation propaganda in the media. Don’t be taken in by it.
Read more:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/falling-prices-are-bad-for-society/
"If we do not rein in the police state’s influence in the schools, the future to which we are sending our children will be characterized by a brutal, totalitarian regime."
Handcuffs, Leg Shackles and Tasers: The New Face of Punishment in the Public Schools
By John W. Whitehead
“In many parts of the country, teachers are viewed as beyond reproach, much like doctors, police officers, or clergy … and, therefore, are rarely challenged about their classroom conduct. In some cases, this means that actions that would be considered criminal if committed by a parent remain unchallenged by law enforcement if they occur in a school setting.”—Senator Tom Harkin, “Dangerous Use of Seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult to Remedy: A Review of Ten Cases”
Roughly 1500 kids are tied up or locked down every day by school officials in the United States.
At least 500 students are locked up in some form of solitary confinement every day, whether it be a padded room, a closet or a duffel bag. In many cases, parents are rarely notified when such methods are used.
On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”
In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums. Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.
Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers (a.k.a. police officers) in the nation’s public schools.
For example, in what may be the youngest example of a child being restrained in this way, in October 2014, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.
In New York, “school safety agents” tied a 5-year-old ADHD student to a chair with Velcro straps as a punishment for throwing a tantrum in class. Police officers claim the straps were necessary because the boy had tried to bite one of the adults.
A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.
A second-grader in Arizona who suffers from ADHD was duct-taped to her chair after getting up to sharpen her pencil too often.
Kentucky school officials placed a 9-year-old autistic student in a duffel bag as a punishment acting up in class. Turns out, it wasn’t the first time the boy had been placed inside the “therapy bag.”
An 11-year-old special needs student had his hands cuffed behind his back and was driven home in a police car after refusing to come inside after recess and acting in an out of control manner by “passively” resisting police officers.
Unfortunately, these are far from isolated incidents.
According to a ProPublica investigative report, such harsh punishments are part of a widespread phenomenon plaguing school districts across the country.
Indeed, as investigative reporter Heather Vogell points out, this is a local story everywhere. It’s happening in my town. It’s happening in your town. It’s happening in every school district in America.
In 2012 alone, there were more than 267,000 attempts by school officials to restrain or lock up students using straps, bungee cords, and duct tape. The numbers are likely far greater when one accounts for the schools that underreport their use of such tactics.
Vogell found that “most [incidents] of restraints and seclusions happen to kids with disabilities—and are more likely to happen to kids with autism or emotional/behavioral problems.” Often due to their age, their emotional distress, or their disabilities, these young people are unable to tell their parents about the abusive treatment being meted out to them by school officials.
At least 500 students are placed in “Scream Rooms” every day (there were 104,000 reported uses of scream rooms in a given year). For those unfamiliar with the term, a “scream room” is an isolated, unmonitored, locked room—sometimes padded, often as small as four-feet-by-four-feet—which school officials use to place students in seclusion.
These scream rooms are a far cry from the tested and approved “time out,” which involves monitoring the child in a non-locked setting in order to calm him down. As psychiatrist Keith Albow points out, “Scream rooms are nothing but solitary confinement, and by extension, that makes every school that uses them a prison. They turn principals into wardens and make every student an inmate.”
Schools acting like prisons. School officials acting like wardens. Students treated like inmates and punished like hardened criminals.
This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.
Paradoxically, instead of making the schools safer, school officials have succeeded in creating an environment in which children are so traumatized that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, anxiety, mistrust of adults in authority, as well as feelings of anger, depression, humiliation, despair and delusion.
Even in the face of parental outrage, lawsuits, legislative reforms, investigative reports and endless cases showing that these tactics are not working and “should never be used for punishment or discipline,” full-grown adults—police officers and teachers alike—insist that the reason they continue to handcuff, lock up and restrain little kids is because they fear for their safety and the safety of others.
“Fear for one’s safety” has become such a hackneyed and threadbare excuse for behavior that is inexcusable. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that explanation covers a multitude of sins, whether it’s poorly trained police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, or school officials who are ill-equipped to deal with children who act like children, meaning they don’t always listen, they sometimes throw tantrums, and they have a hard time sitting still.
That’s not to say all schools are bad. In fact, there are a small but growing number of schools that are proactively switching to a policy of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which relies on the use of “engaging instruction, combined with acknowledgement or feedback of positive student behavior,” in order to reduce the need for unnecessary discipline and promote a climate of greater productivity, safety, and learning. One school in Pennsylvania for children with significant behavior challenges found that they were able to “reduce the use of physical restraint from approximately 1,000 incidents per year in 1998 to only three incidents total in 2012” after switching to a PBIS-oriented program. If exposed to this positive reinforcement early enough in school, by the time a student makes it to the third grade, little to no intervention is required.
Unfortunately, these schools are still in the minority in an age that values efficiency, expediency and conformity, where it’s often faster and easier to “lock down” a kid who won’t sit still, won’t follow orders, and won’t comply.
Certainly, this is a mindset we see all too often in the American police state.
So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country? How do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?
Most of all, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?
Peter Gray, a professor of psychology at Boston College, believes that school is a prison that is damaging our kids, and it’s hard to disagree, especially with the numbers of police officers being assigned to schools on the rise. What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”
Students, in turn, are not only finding themselves subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up” but are also being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk.
Clearly, the pathology that characterizes the American police state has passed down to the schools. Now in addition to the government and its agents viewing the citizenry as suspects to be probed, poked, pinched, tasered, searched, seized, stripped and generally manhandled, all with the general blessing of the court, our children in the public schools are also fair game.
What can be done?
Without a doubt, change is needed, but that will mean taking on the teachers’ unions, the school unions, the educators’ associations, and the police unions, not to mention the politicians dependent on their votes and all of the corporations that profit mightily from an industrial school complex.
As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards. For a start, parents need to be vocal, visible and organized and demand that school officials 1) adopt a policy of positive reinforcement in dealing with behavior issues; 2) minimize the presence in the schools of police officers and cease involving them in student discipline; and 3) insist that all behavioral issues be addressed first and foremost with a child’s parents, before any other disciplinary tactics are attempted.
“Children are the messages we send to a time we will not see,” Professor Neil Postman once wrote. If we do not rein in the police state’s influence in the schools, the future to which we are sending our children will be characterized by a brutal, totalitarian regime.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/john-w-whitehead/handcuffs-leg-shackles-and-tasers/
By John W. Whitehead
“In many parts of the country, teachers are viewed as beyond reproach, much like doctors, police officers, or clergy … and, therefore, are rarely challenged about their classroom conduct. In some cases, this means that actions that would be considered criminal if committed by a parent remain unchallenged by law enforcement if they occur in a school setting.”—Senator Tom Harkin, “Dangerous Use of Seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult to Remedy: A Review of Ten Cases”
Roughly 1500 kids are tied up or locked down every day by school officials in the United States.
At least 500 students are locked up in some form of solitary confinement every day, whether it be a padded room, a closet or a duffel bag. In many cases, parents are rarely notified when such methods are used.
On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”
In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums. Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.
Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers (a.k.a. police officers) in the nation’s public schools.
For example, in what may be the youngest example of a child being restrained in this way, in October 2014, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.
In New York, “school safety agents” tied a 5-year-old ADHD student to a chair with Velcro straps as a punishment for throwing a tantrum in class. Police officers claim the straps were necessary because the boy had tried to bite one of the adults.
A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.
A second-grader in Arizona who suffers from ADHD was duct-taped to her chair after getting up to sharpen her pencil too often.
Kentucky school officials placed a 9-year-old autistic student in a duffel bag as a punishment acting up in class. Turns out, it wasn’t the first time the boy had been placed inside the “therapy bag.”
An 11-year-old special needs student had his hands cuffed behind his back and was driven home in a police car after refusing to come inside after recess and acting in an out of control manner by “passively” resisting police officers.
Unfortunately, these are far from isolated incidents.
According to a ProPublica investigative report, such harsh punishments are part of a widespread phenomenon plaguing school districts across the country.
Indeed, as investigative reporter Heather Vogell points out, this is a local story everywhere. It’s happening in my town. It’s happening in your town. It’s happening in every school district in America.
In 2012 alone, there were more than 267,000 attempts by school officials to restrain or lock up students using straps, bungee cords, and duct tape. The numbers are likely far greater when one accounts for the schools that underreport their use of such tactics.
Vogell found that “most [incidents] of restraints and seclusions happen to kids with disabilities—and are more likely to happen to kids with autism or emotional/behavioral problems.” Often due to their age, their emotional distress, or their disabilities, these young people are unable to tell their parents about the abusive treatment being meted out to them by school officials.
At least 500 students are placed in “Scream Rooms” every day (there were 104,000 reported uses of scream rooms in a given year). For those unfamiliar with the term, a “scream room” is an isolated, unmonitored, locked room—sometimes padded, often as small as four-feet-by-four-feet—which school officials use to place students in seclusion.
These scream rooms are a far cry from the tested and approved “time out,” which involves monitoring the child in a non-locked setting in order to calm him down. As psychiatrist Keith Albow points out, “Scream rooms are nothing but solitary confinement, and by extension, that makes every school that uses them a prison. They turn principals into wardens and make every student an inmate.”
Schools acting like prisons. School officials acting like wardens. Students treated like inmates and punished like hardened criminals.
This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.
Paradoxically, instead of making the schools safer, school officials have succeeded in creating an environment in which children are so traumatized that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, anxiety, mistrust of adults in authority, as well as feelings of anger, depression, humiliation, despair and delusion.
Even in the face of parental outrage, lawsuits, legislative reforms, investigative reports and endless cases showing that these tactics are not working and “should never be used for punishment or discipline,” full-grown adults—police officers and teachers alike—insist that the reason they continue to handcuff, lock up and restrain little kids is because they fear for their safety and the safety of others.
“Fear for one’s safety” has become such a hackneyed and threadbare excuse for behavior that is inexcusable. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that explanation covers a multitude of sins, whether it’s poorly trained police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, or school officials who are ill-equipped to deal with children who act like children, meaning they don’t always listen, they sometimes throw tantrums, and they have a hard time sitting still.
That’s not to say all schools are bad. In fact, there are a small but growing number of schools that are proactively switching to a policy of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which relies on the use of “engaging instruction, combined with acknowledgement or feedback of positive student behavior,” in order to reduce the need for unnecessary discipline and promote a climate of greater productivity, safety, and learning. One school in Pennsylvania for children with significant behavior challenges found that they were able to “reduce the use of physical restraint from approximately 1,000 incidents per year in 1998 to only three incidents total in 2012” after switching to a PBIS-oriented program. If exposed to this positive reinforcement early enough in school, by the time a student makes it to the third grade, little to no intervention is required.
Unfortunately, these schools are still in the minority in an age that values efficiency, expediency and conformity, where it’s often faster and easier to “lock down” a kid who won’t sit still, won’t follow orders, and won’t comply.
Certainly, this is a mindset we see all too often in the American police state.
So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country? How do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?
Most of all, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?
Peter Gray, a professor of psychology at Boston College, believes that school is a prison that is damaging our kids, and it’s hard to disagree, especially with the numbers of police officers being assigned to schools on the rise. What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”
Students, in turn, are not only finding themselves subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up” but are also being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk.
Clearly, the pathology that characterizes the American police state has passed down to the schools. Now in addition to the government and its agents viewing the citizenry as suspects to be probed, poked, pinched, tasered, searched, seized, stripped and generally manhandled, all with the general blessing of the court, our children in the public schools are also fair game.
What can be done?
Without a doubt, change is needed, but that will mean taking on the teachers’ unions, the school unions, the educators’ associations, and the police unions, not to mention the politicians dependent on their votes and all of the corporations that profit mightily from an industrial school complex.
As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards. For a start, parents need to be vocal, visible and organized and demand that school officials 1) adopt a policy of positive reinforcement in dealing with behavior issues; 2) minimize the presence in the schools of police officers and cease involving them in student discipline; and 3) insist that all behavioral issues be addressed first and foremost with a child’s parents, before any other disciplinary tactics are attempted.
“Children are the messages we send to a time we will not see,” Professor Neil Postman once wrote. If we do not rein in the police state’s influence in the schools, the future to which we are sending our children will be characterized by a brutal, totalitarian regime.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/john-w-whitehead/handcuffs-leg-shackles-and-tasers/
But, it is ok for them to track us...
Awwww, Poor Widdow Piggies Don’t Like Being Treated as They Treat Us
Becky Akers
Cops object to Google’s “crowd-sourced traffic app Waze,” which is “able to report the position of police officers.” Their excuse is the usual: “the information is putting officer’s lives at risk.” But in reality, when have Our Rulers ever consented to our doing unto them as they do unto us? Or, as Mark Luedtke, who sent me the link, puts it, “If tracking cops endangers cops, then tracking serfs endangers serfs.” Of course, though only the serfs care.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/awwww-poor-widdow-piggies-dont-like-being-treated-as-they-treat-us/
Becky Akers
Cops object to Google’s “crowd-sourced traffic app Waze,” which is “able to report the position of police officers.” Their excuse is the usual: “the information is putting officer’s lives at risk.” But in reality, when have Our Rulers ever consented to our doing unto them as they do unto us? Or, as Mark Luedtke, who sent me the link, puts it, “If tracking cops endangers cops, then tracking serfs endangers serfs.” Of course, though only the serfs care.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/awwww-poor-widdow-piggies-dont-like-being-treated-as-they-treat-us/
See, it's free...
Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report
Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years
Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare
The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best
The law will still leave 'between 29 million and 31 million' nonelderly Americans without medical insurance
Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025
By David Martosko
It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.
The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's new ten-year budget outlook.
The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html#ixzz3Q1ZRPpQt
Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years
Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare
The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best
The law will still leave 'between 29 million and 31 million' nonelderly Americans without medical insurance
Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025
By David Martosko
It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.
The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's new ten-year budget outlook.
The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html#ixzz3Q1ZRPpQt
Monday, January 26, 2015
"The national-security establishment knows that the only way to achieve all that is by keeping the troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, thereby producing an endless supply of terrorists, and also by continuing a constant flow of U.S. taxpayer money into foreign regimes that are generating anger and hatred with their oppressive policies."
The National Security Establishment vs. Defense
by Jacob G. Hornberger
I have a simple proposal: Why not bring all the troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East. I mean all of them. Bring them all home and let them defend the United States. After all, it’s called the Department of Defense, right? Well, what would be wrong with applying the principle of defense to our country by bringing all the troops home and having them defend the United States?
U.S. officials say that that would be horrible idea because the troops are over there killing terrorists before they come to the United States. Better that the battlefield is over there rather than here at home, U.S. officials say.
But foreigners are not iron filings and U.S. troops are not magnets. If foreigners wish to come to the United States and commit terrorist acts, they don’t have to overcome the troops over there first. The troops have not erected some sort of well-guarded giant wall that terrorists must overcome in order to get to the United States. If terrorists want to come to the United States, there are ways to circumvent the troops who are stationed in foreign countries and make their way to the United States.
If the troops were to be brought home, the fact is that they would be bored to no end. There would be nothing for them to do except practice mindless skills, like doing left face and right face in formation.
One reason they would be bored is that U.S. law prohibits the troops from enforcing domestic criminal laws. Under U.S. law, that’s what terrorism is — a federal criminal offense.
But the big reason they would be bored is that there would be no more terrorists attacking the United States. That’s because the troops would no longer be in Afghanistan and the Middle East killing, torturing, and abusing people.
That’s right: I am saying that this entire “war on terrorism” has nothing to do with Islam and the Koran. After all, let’s not forget that the troops have been killing and dying to protect official Islamic regimes that they have helped to install in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Google the constitutions of both countries.)
Moreover, foreign anger against the United States has nothing to do with hating America for its “freedom and values.” The only reason terrorists want to come to the United States to commit terrorist acts is that the troops are over there killing, maiming, torturing, and abusing people. Once the troops are brought home, there will be no reason for the terrorists to come here to do bad things to Americans.
I might add though that it would also be a good thing to terminate all foreign aid, including to the governments of Israel and Egypt. That sort of thing makes the victims of foreign regimes angry at the government that is funding their programs.
Once it’s clear that the terrorists are not coming to get us and that the troops are totally bored out of their minds, the government can begin discharging them. Think how much tax money that would save. Moreover, the troops would now become productive citizens, producing a doubly positive economic effect.
Equally good, the NSA could stop the surveillance schemes that it says are necessary to protect us from the terrorists. If there are no terrorists coming to get us, why would we need such surveillance schemes? Indeed, why would we need the NSA? If we were to dismantle the NSA and lay off every single NSA employee, think how much tax money that would save. And like discharged troops, those countless NSA employees would become productive citizens in the private sector.
Of course, the biggest opponent of limiting the troops to defense is the entire national-security establishment — the apparatus that was grafted onto our constitutional order after World War II to wage the Cold War against the Soviet Union and communism. The continued existence of the national-security apparatus necessarily depends on an endless supply of terrorists, perpetual crises, and ongoing fear within the American people.
The national-security establishment knows that the only way to achieve all that is by keeping the troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, thereby producing an endless supply of terrorists, and also by continuing a constant flow of U.S. taxpayer money into foreign regimes that are generating anger and hatred with their oppressive policies.
That’s why the national-security establishment hates the concept of defense. It knows that defense would put it out of business.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/01/26/national-security-establishment-vs-defense/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
I have a simple proposal: Why not bring all the troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East. I mean all of them. Bring them all home and let them defend the United States. After all, it’s called the Department of Defense, right? Well, what would be wrong with applying the principle of defense to our country by bringing all the troops home and having them defend the United States?
U.S. officials say that that would be horrible idea because the troops are over there killing terrorists before they come to the United States. Better that the battlefield is over there rather than here at home, U.S. officials say.
But foreigners are not iron filings and U.S. troops are not magnets. If foreigners wish to come to the United States and commit terrorist acts, they don’t have to overcome the troops over there first. The troops have not erected some sort of well-guarded giant wall that terrorists must overcome in order to get to the United States. If terrorists want to come to the United States, there are ways to circumvent the troops who are stationed in foreign countries and make their way to the United States.
If the troops were to be brought home, the fact is that they would be bored to no end. There would be nothing for them to do except practice mindless skills, like doing left face and right face in formation.
One reason they would be bored is that U.S. law prohibits the troops from enforcing domestic criminal laws. Under U.S. law, that’s what terrorism is — a federal criminal offense.
But the big reason they would be bored is that there would be no more terrorists attacking the United States. That’s because the troops would no longer be in Afghanistan and the Middle East killing, torturing, and abusing people.
That’s right: I am saying that this entire “war on terrorism” has nothing to do with Islam and the Koran. After all, let’s not forget that the troops have been killing and dying to protect official Islamic regimes that they have helped to install in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Google the constitutions of both countries.)
Moreover, foreign anger against the United States has nothing to do with hating America for its “freedom and values.” The only reason terrorists want to come to the United States to commit terrorist acts is that the troops are over there killing, maiming, torturing, and abusing people. Once the troops are brought home, there will be no reason for the terrorists to come here to do bad things to Americans.
I might add though that it would also be a good thing to terminate all foreign aid, including to the governments of Israel and Egypt. That sort of thing makes the victims of foreign regimes angry at the government that is funding their programs.
Once it’s clear that the terrorists are not coming to get us and that the troops are totally bored out of their minds, the government can begin discharging them. Think how much tax money that would save. Moreover, the troops would now become productive citizens, producing a doubly positive economic effect.
Equally good, the NSA could stop the surveillance schemes that it says are necessary to protect us from the terrorists. If there are no terrorists coming to get us, why would we need such surveillance schemes? Indeed, why would we need the NSA? If we were to dismantle the NSA and lay off every single NSA employee, think how much tax money that would save. And like discharged troops, those countless NSA employees would become productive citizens in the private sector.
Of course, the biggest opponent of limiting the troops to defense is the entire national-security establishment — the apparatus that was grafted onto our constitutional order after World War II to wage the Cold War against the Soviet Union and communism. The continued existence of the national-security apparatus necessarily depends on an endless supply of terrorists, perpetual crises, and ongoing fear within the American people.
The national-security establishment knows that the only way to achieve all that is by keeping the troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, thereby producing an endless supply of terrorists, and also by continuing a constant flow of U.S. taxpayer money into foreign regimes that are generating anger and hatred with their oppressive policies.
That’s why the national-security establishment hates the concept of defense. It knows that defense would put it out of business.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/01/26/national-security-establishment-vs-defense/
Why isn't he in jail???
US Senator John McCain: "I know ISIS intimately, I've met them and I talk to them all the time."
"War, War, War, that is all Washington wants. It enriches the military/security complex, the largest component of the US GNP and the largest contributor, along with Wall Street and the Israel Lobby, to US political campaigns."
Freedom, Where Are You? Not in America or Europe
Paul Craig Roberts
When the former Goldman Sachs executive who runs the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that he was going to print 720 billion euros annually with which to purchase bad debts from the politically connected big banks, the euro sank and the stock market and Swiss france shot up. As in the US, quantitative easing (QE) serves to enrich the already rich. It has no other purpose.
The well-heeled financial institutions that bought up the troubled sovereign debt of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain at low prices will now sell the bonds to the ECB for high prices. And despite depression level unemployment in most of Europe and austerity imposed on citizens, the stock market rose in anticipation that much of the 60 billion new euros that will be created each month will find its way into equity prices. Liquidity fuels the stock market.
Where else can the money to go? Some will go into Swiss francs and some into gold while gold is still available, but for the most part the ECB is running the printing press in order to boost the wealth of the stock-owning One Percent. The Federal Reserve and the ECB have taken the West back to the days when a handful of aristocrats owned everything.
The stock markets are bubbles blown by central bank money creation. On the basis of traditional reasoning there is no sound reason to be in equities, and sound investors have avoided them.
But there is no return anywhere else, and as the central banks are run by the rich for the rich, sound reasoning has proved to be a mistake for the past six years. This shows that corruption can prevail for an indeterminable period over fundamentals.
As I demonstrated in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, first Goldman Sachs deceived lenders into over-lending to the Greek government. Then Goldman Sachs former executives took over Greece’s financial affairs and forced austerity upon the population in order to prevent losses to the foreign lenders.
This established a new principle in Europe, one that the IMF has relentlessly applied to Latin American and Third World debtors. The principle is that when foreign lenders make mistakes and over-lend to foreign governments, loading them up with debt, the bankers’ mistakes are rectified by robbing the poor populations. Pensions, social services, and public employment are cut, valuable resources are sold off to foreigners for pennies on the dollar, and the government is forced to support US foreign policy. John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man describes the process perfectly. If you haven’t read Perkins book, you have little idea how corrupt and vicious the United States is. Indeed, Perkins shows that over-lending is intentional in order to set up the country for looting.
This is what Goldman Sachs did to Greece, intentionally or unintentionally.
It took the Greeks a long time to realize it. Apparently, 36.5 percent of the population was awoken by rising poverty, unemployment, and suicide rates. That figure, a little over one-third of the vote, was enough to put Syriza in power in the just concluded Greek election, throwing out the corrupt New Democracy party that has consistently sold out the Greek people to the foreign banks. Nevertheless, 27.7 percent of the Greeks, if the vote reporting is correct, voted for the party that has sacrificed the Greek people to the banksters. Even in Greece, a country accustomed to outpourings of people into the streets, a significant percentage of the population is sufficiently brainwashed to vote against their own interests.
Can Syriza do anything? It remains to be seen, but probably not. If the political party had received 55% or 65% or 75% of the vote, yes. But the largest vote at 36.5% does not show a unified country aware of its plight and its looting at the hands of rich banksters. The vote shows that a significant percentage of the Greek population supports foreign looting of Greece.
Moreover, Syriza is up against the heavies: the German and Netherlands banks who hold Greece’s loans and the governments that back the banks, the European Union which is using the sovereign debt crisis to destroy the sovereignty of the individual countries that comprise the European Union, Washington which backs EU sovereign power over the individual countries as it is easier to control one government than a couple of dozen.
Already the Western financial presstitutes are warning Syriza not to endanger its membership in the common currency by diverting from the austerity model imposed from abroad on Greek citizens with the complicity of New Democracy.
Apparently, there is a lack of formal means of exiting the EU and the euro, but nevertheless Greece can be threatened with being thrown out. Greece should welcome being thrown out.
Exiting the EU and the euro is the best thing that can happen to Greece. A country without its own currency is not a sovereign country. It is a vassal state of another power. A country without its own currency cannot finance its own needs. Although the UK is a member of the EU, the UK kept its own currency and is not subject to control by the ECB. A country without its own money is powerless. It is a non-entity.
If the US did not have its own dollar, the US would be of no consequence whatsoever on the world scene.
The EU and the euro were deception and trickery. Countries lost their sovereignty. So much for Western “self-rule,” “freedom,” “democracy,” all slogans without content. In the entire West there is nothing but the looting of people by the One Percent who control the governments.
In America, the looting does not rely on indebtedness, because the US dollar is the reserve currency and the US can print all the money needed in order to pay its bills and redeem its debt. In America the looting of labor has been through jobs offshoring.
American corporations discovered, and if they did not they were informed by Wall Street to move offshore or be taken over, that they could raise profits by moving their manufacturing operations abroad. The lower labor cost resulted in higher profits, higher share prices, huge managerial bonuses based on “performance,” and shareholder capital gains. Offshoring greatly increased the inequality in income and wealth in the US. Capital succeeded in looting labor.
The displaced well-paid manufacturing workers, if they were able to find replacement jobs, worked part-time minimum wage jobs at Walmart and Home Depot.
Economists, if they are entitled to the designation, such as Michael Porter and Matthew Slaughter, promised Americans that the fictional “New Economy” would produce better, higher-paying, and cleaner jobs for Americans than the “dirty fingernail” jobs that we were fortunate our corporations were moving offshore.
Years later, as I have proven conclusively, there is no sign of these “New Economy” jobs. What we have instead is a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate as the unemployed cannot find jobs. The replacement jobs for the manufacturing jobs are mainly part-time domestic service jobs.
People have to hold 2 or 3 of these jobs to make ends meet. These part time jobs offer no medical or pension benefits.
Now that this fact, once controversial believe it or not, has proven completely true, the same bought-and-paid-for spokespersons for robbing labor and destroying unions claim, without a shred of evidence, that the offshored jobs are coming home.
According to these propagandists, we now have what is called “reshoring.” A “reshoring” propagandist claims that the growth of “reshoring” over the past four years is 1,775 percent, an 18 times increase.http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/2015/A.T.Kearny-No-Data-Supporting-Reshoring-0112151.html
There is no sign whatsoever of these alleged “reshoring” jobs in the monthly BLS payroll jobs statistics.
What reshoring is all about is propaganda to counteract the belated realization that “free trade” agreements and job offshoring were not beneficial to the American economy or its work force, but were beneficial only to the super-rich.
Like people throughout history, the American people are being turned into serfs and slaves because the fools believe the lies that are fed to them. They sit in front of Fox News, CNN, and whatever. They read the New York Times. If you want to learn how badly Americans have been served by the so-called media, read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s The Untold History of the United States.
The media helps the government, and the private interests that profit from their control of government, control the brainwashed public. We have to invade Afghanistan because a faction there fighting for political control of the country is protecting Osama bin Laden, whom the US accuses without any proof of embarrassing the mighty US with the 9/11 attack. We have to invade Iraq because Saddam has “weapons of mass destruction” that he surely has despite the reports to the contrary by the weapons inspectors. We have to overthrow Gaddafi because of a slate of lies that have best been forgotten. We have to overthrow Assad because he used chemical weapons even though all evidence is to the contrary. Russia is responsible for Ukraine problems, not because the US overthrew the elected democratic government but because Russia accepted a 97.6% vote of Crimeans to rejoin Russia where the province had resided for hundreds of years before a Ukrainian Soviet leader, Khrushchev, stuck Crimea into Ukraine, at the time a part of the Soviet Union along with Russia.
War, War, War, that is all Washington wants. It enriches the military/security complex, the largest component of the US GNP and the largest contributor, along with Wall Street and the Israel Lobby, to US political campaigns.
Anyone or any organization that offers truth to the lies is demonized. Last week the new chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, listed the Russian TV Internet service Russia Today as the equivalent of Boko Haram and the Islamic State terrorist groups. This absurd accusation is a prelude to closing down RT in the US just as Washington’s puppet UK government closed down Iran’s Press TV.http://rt.com/usa/225819-rt-isis-point-view-competition/
In other words, Anglo-Americans are not permitted any different news than what is served to them by “their” governments.
That is the state of “freedom” in the West today.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/freedom-where-are-you-not-in-america-or-europe.html
Paul Craig Roberts
When the former Goldman Sachs executive who runs the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that he was going to print 720 billion euros annually with which to purchase bad debts from the politically connected big banks, the euro sank and the stock market and Swiss france shot up. As in the US, quantitative easing (QE) serves to enrich the already rich. It has no other purpose.
The well-heeled financial institutions that bought up the troubled sovereign debt of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain at low prices will now sell the bonds to the ECB for high prices. And despite depression level unemployment in most of Europe and austerity imposed on citizens, the stock market rose in anticipation that much of the 60 billion new euros that will be created each month will find its way into equity prices. Liquidity fuels the stock market.
Where else can the money to go? Some will go into Swiss francs and some into gold while gold is still available, but for the most part the ECB is running the printing press in order to boost the wealth of the stock-owning One Percent. The Federal Reserve and the ECB have taken the West back to the days when a handful of aristocrats owned everything.
The stock markets are bubbles blown by central bank money creation. On the basis of traditional reasoning there is no sound reason to be in equities, and sound investors have avoided them.
But there is no return anywhere else, and as the central banks are run by the rich for the rich, sound reasoning has proved to be a mistake for the past six years. This shows that corruption can prevail for an indeterminable period over fundamentals.
As I demonstrated in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, first Goldman Sachs deceived lenders into over-lending to the Greek government. Then Goldman Sachs former executives took over Greece’s financial affairs and forced austerity upon the population in order to prevent losses to the foreign lenders.
This established a new principle in Europe, one that the IMF has relentlessly applied to Latin American and Third World debtors. The principle is that when foreign lenders make mistakes and over-lend to foreign governments, loading them up with debt, the bankers’ mistakes are rectified by robbing the poor populations. Pensions, social services, and public employment are cut, valuable resources are sold off to foreigners for pennies on the dollar, and the government is forced to support US foreign policy. John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man describes the process perfectly. If you haven’t read Perkins book, you have little idea how corrupt and vicious the United States is. Indeed, Perkins shows that over-lending is intentional in order to set up the country for looting.
This is what Goldman Sachs did to Greece, intentionally or unintentionally.
It took the Greeks a long time to realize it. Apparently, 36.5 percent of the population was awoken by rising poverty, unemployment, and suicide rates. That figure, a little over one-third of the vote, was enough to put Syriza in power in the just concluded Greek election, throwing out the corrupt New Democracy party that has consistently sold out the Greek people to the foreign banks. Nevertheless, 27.7 percent of the Greeks, if the vote reporting is correct, voted for the party that has sacrificed the Greek people to the banksters. Even in Greece, a country accustomed to outpourings of people into the streets, a significant percentage of the population is sufficiently brainwashed to vote against their own interests.
Can Syriza do anything? It remains to be seen, but probably not. If the political party had received 55% or 65% or 75% of the vote, yes. But the largest vote at 36.5% does not show a unified country aware of its plight and its looting at the hands of rich banksters. The vote shows that a significant percentage of the Greek population supports foreign looting of Greece.
Moreover, Syriza is up against the heavies: the German and Netherlands banks who hold Greece’s loans and the governments that back the banks, the European Union which is using the sovereign debt crisis to destroy the sovereignty of the individual countries that comprise the European Union, Washington which backs EU sovereign power over the individual countries as it is easier to control one government than a couple of dozen.
Already the Western financial presstitutes are warning Syriza not to endanger its membership in the common currency by diverting from the austerity model imposed from abroad on Greek citizens with the complicity of New Democracy.
Apparently, there is a lack of formal means of exiting the EU and the euro, but nevertheless Greece can be threatened with being thrown out. Greece should welcome being thrown out.
Exiting the EU and the euro is the best thing that can happen to Greece. A country without its own currency is not a sovereign country. It is a vassal state of another power. A country without its own currency cannot finance its own needs. Although the UK is a member of the EU, the UK kept its own currency and is not subject to control by the ECB. A country without its own money is powerless. It is a non-entity.
If the US did not have its own dollar, the US would be of no consequence whatsoever on the world scene.
The EU and the euro were deception and trickery. Countries lost their sovereignty. So much for Western “self-rule,” “freedom,” “democracy,” all slogans without content. In the entire West there is nothing but the looting of people by the One Percent who control the governments.
In America, the looting does not rely on indebtedness, because the US dollar is the reserve currency and the US can print all the money needed in order to pay its bills and redeem its debt. In America the looting of labor has been through jobs offshoring.
American corporations discovered, and if they did not they were informed by Wall Street to move offshore or be taken over, that they could raise profits by moving their manufacturing operations abroad. The lower labor cost resulted in higher profits, higher share prices, huge managerial bonuses based on “performance,” and shareholder capital gains. Offshoring greatly increased the inequality in income and wealth in the US. Capital succeeded in looting labor.
The displaced well-paid manufacturing workers, if they were able to find replacement jobs, worked part-time minimum wage jobs at Walmart and Home Depot.
Economists, if they are entitled to the designation, such as Michael Porter and Matthew Slaughter, promised Americans that the fictional “New Economy” would produce better, higher-paying, and cleaner jobs for Americans than the “dirty fingernail” jobs that we were fortunate our corporations were moving offshore.
Years later, as I have proven conclusively, there is no sign of these “New Economy” jobs. What we have instead is a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate as the unemployed cannot find jobs. The replacement jobs for the manufacturing jobs are mainly part-time domestic service jobs.
People have to hold 2 or 3 of these jobs to make ends meet. These part time jobs offer no medical or pension benefits.
Now that this fact, once controversial believe it or not, has proven completely true, the same bought-and-paid-for spokespersons for robbing labor and destroying unions claim, without a shred of evidence, that the offshored jobs are coming home.
According to these propagandists, we now have what is called “reshoring.” A “reshoring” propagandist claims that the growth of “reshoring” over the past four years is 1,775 percent, an 18 times increase.http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/2015/A.T.Kearny-No-Data-Supporting-Reshoring-0112151.html
There is no sign whatsoever of these alleged “reshoring” jobs in the monthly BLS payroll jobs statistics.
What reshoring is all about is propaganda to counteract the belated realization that “free trade” agreements and job offshoring were not beneficial to the American economy or its work force, but were beneficial only to the super-rich.
Like people throughout history, the American people are being turned into serfs and slaves because the fools believe the lies that are fed to them. They sit in front of Fox News, CNN, and whatever. They read the New York Times. If you want to learn how badly Americans have been served by the so-called media, read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s The Untold History of the United States.
The media helps the government, and the private interests that profit from their control of government, control the brainwashed public. We have to invade Afghanistan because a faction there fighting for political control of the country is protecting Osama bin Laden, whom the US accuses without any proof of embarrassing the mighty US with the 9/11 attack. We have to invade Iraq because Saddam has “weapons of mass destruction” that he surely has despite the reports to the contrary by the weapons inspectors. We have to overthrow Gaddafi because of a slate of lies that have best been forgotten. We have to overthrow Assad because he used chemical weapons even though all evidence is to the contrary. Russia is responsible for Ukraine problems, not because the US overthrew the elected democratic government but because Russia accepted a 97.6% vote of Crimeans to rejoin Russia where the province had resided for hundreds of years before a Ukrainian Soviet leader, Khrushchev, stuck Crimea into Ukraine, at the time a part of the Soviet Union along with Russia.
War, War, War, that is all Washington wants. It enriches the military/security complex, the largest component of the US GNP and the largest contributor, along with Wall Street and the Israel Lobby, to US political campaigns.
Anyone or any organization that offers truth to the lies is demonized. Last week the new chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, listed the Russian TV Internet service Russia Today as the equivalent of Boko Haram and the Islamic State terrorist groups. This absurd accusation is a prelude to closing down RT in the US just as Washington’s puppet UK government closed down Iran’s Press TV.http://rt.com/usa/225819-rt-isis-point-view-competition/
In other words, Anglo-Americans are not permitted any different news than what is served to them by “their” governments.
That is the state of “freedom” in the West today.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/freedom-where-are-you-not-in-america-or-europe.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)