Semi-Daily Journal

If not a plan, perhaps a lifestyle?

Consider that George Bush, who may well not have even been elected, has succeeded at looting the Treasury of trillions of dollars, handed out to his contributors and recycled into his re-selection fund. Civil liberties have been so smashed so that it's even a crime to enjoy imagining harm coming to him.

He's accomplished what Republicans have dreamed of doing for a generation: wrecking Medicare. He's well on his way to achieving the 70-year goal of Republicans: destroying Social Security. The appointment of plainly biased judges, begun under Reagan, is destroying the credibility of the judiciary.

One more term, especially with a friendly Congress, and there will be no power except that of the corporate state, as administered by King George. Democratically-elected government will be permanently discredited.

If the man could do anything without bungling it, one would think it was a plan. But I think it's just a lifestyle.

Once again Alterman has trouble getting the facts straight. Let’s start with “cheering crowds mutilate their bodies.” This report has already been retracted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/international/24CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1070341200&en=4fd2f3c1df607d11&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

According to the above report, the solders were shot while traveling in an unarmed SUV. Robbers removed them from the vehicle and stole their personal belongings. Where are the cheering crowds? This could happen on Telegraph Avenue.

Next we have “the world is united in hating us.” If the world hates us so much why are hordes of humanity trying to immigrate to the US? People don’t pour into a place they hate. For that matter why aren’t hordes leaving this hateful place? Try and deport someone and they sue to stay. This is hate? A drop in approval ratings has an ambiguous meaning as discussed by Randy Barnett in the Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/2003_11_02_volokh_archive.html#106805825792106543

But on control of the budget, I agree. Bush is spending money like an old time Democrat.

Hey, the 14 dead were only Iraqis. Today the NY Times covered deaths of American soldiers on page 10.

I challenge A Zarkov to find someone killing soldiers on Telegraph Ave, or Gratiot Ave, or even down on Puritan and Fenkell.

It doesn't happen. Really, it doesn't

You can gloss over that fact, or conveniently "forget" that we are liberators and there to "free" them little Eye-rackees.

Your post...er...needs work.

D

I get really tired of seeing this "how come so many people want to come here if we're hated so much" gibberish. Stop and think about the circumstances many of those people may be trying to escape. Does the phrase "any port in a storm" mean anything to you?

The things that are happening in this country thanks to this Administration (civil liberties erosion, social programs gnawed at, corporate immunity from lawsuits, individual bankruptcy protection diminished, among many many others) may not be noticeable to new immigrants. To people like me, who were born here, it's clearly a reduction in social compact.

I get really tired of seeing this "how come so many people want to come here if we're hated so much" gibberish. Stop and think about the circumstances many of those people may be trying to escape. Does the phrase "any port in a storm" mean anything to you?

The things that are happening in this country thanks to this Administration (civil liberties erosion, social programs gnawed at, corporate immunity from lawsuits, individual bankruptcy protection diminished, among many many others) may not be noticeable to new immigrants. To people like me, who were born here, it's clearly a reduction in social compact.

Sorry for the double post.

I have a hard time believing so much of the world is in a storm and the US is the only port. Where is the storm in India, the Philippines, Mexico, China, Poland, Finland, Iceland and scores of other countries? Go to LAX and stand behind the immigration counter and look at the mobs of people gleefully entering, hoping to stay. The US is about to launch a worldwide immigration lottery and every last ticket will get gobbled up. A universal animus against the US is not a sustainable idea. Give me a place where people have more civil liberties, more opportunity to work, and start a business, or get a higher education.

As for Telegraph Avenue, hey loosen up a little. Actually it’s not a particularly safe place. I know someone who was walking along the street minding his own business when three thugs jumped him and broke his arm, just for the fun of it. I worked three years in Harlem, part of a summer in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn (during the 64’ race riots) and lived four years in Manhattan’s El Barrio, so I’m no stranger to dangerous neighborhoods. But Telegraph Avenue is one of the scariest places of all. Perhaps because you find so many lunatics there who think they’re living in the worst country on earth.

" Give me a place where people have more civil liberties, more opportunity to work, and start a business, or get a higher education."

I lived in the U.S for twenty-two years, and Denmark for the last 4, the answer would seem to be Denmark - unless by more opportunity to work you mean situations requiring you to work overtime. I do feel that the danes are sort of lazy on that score, but I don't necessarily feel that invalidates the nation.

Civil Liberties, seem to be equal to the U.S in most respects and superior in the aspect of the police actually respecting them. I could expand this point to give some pertinent examples, but I don't want to take up Brad's blog with my content.

Being able to start a company is equivalent, although it's true there's a lot more regulation after the company has started, it can get to be a pain.

Higher Education! Should I do that BWAA HAH HAH thing that seems so very popular in the blogosphere?

Anyway, I've had experience in these subjects in both countries, the U.S certainly comes out ahead in some things, but they are generally not the things you mention - other than willingness to work long hours. I suppose that Denmark is actually not so unique in this aspect, I'm pretty sure if I moved to Sweden, Norway, Germany, or Iceland I would find a similar parity; all in all I bet a lot of Europe is not so far off from being even with the U.S in these items you chose as the greatness thereof, although I am certain that there are more likely other things that in comparison I would find objectionable in these lands.

A Zarkov wrote:
"If the world hates us so much why are hordes of humanity trying to immigrate to the US? People don’t pour into a place they hate." ... "I have a hard time believing so much of the world is in a storm and the US is the only port. "

Try looking up the per-capita immigration rates to theocratic hellholes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates some day. Should be an interesting experience for you. Then you might also wish to compare and contrast the treatment of particular groups, such as Filipino women, in the Middle East, with the rate at which they truck there to look for work.

The per-capita immigration rate for Russia (of all the fun places imaginable) was pretty close to the US rate in 2002. In *absolute* numbers Russia was number two on the immigration list in 2002 (13 million immigrants, out of a total population of 144 million - even with immigrants Russia's population is slowly declining and without them it would implode), behind the United States, and in front of the rest of the world.

It never fails to amaze me how some people consistently conflate the motivations underlying immigration patterns with their own cherished moral beliefs - and that on an economics blog no less.

And what's hilarious, in a sick sense, is that the same argument could have been used against right-wingers during the Clinton administration: "look at the immigrants. *Millions* of people are struggling for the chance to live under the Clinton administration. So shut the f**k up, or leave the country, right-winger."

The budget deficit has disappeared as a political issue. Does anyone seriously think it will be a major issue in 04? Back in the 1990s, the GOP was clammoring for a balanced budget amendment. It is too bad they did not get it to protect them from themselves. I wonder what Newt and DeLay and the rest of the amendment supporters would say if the issue were brought up today?

It was enscribed:

But on control of the budget, I agree. Bush is spending money like an old time Democrat.

I assume you mean LBJ, trying to fight a war without raising taxes to pay for it.

IIRC, two thirds of the national debt in 1988 was run up by Ronald Regan. Did LBJ triple the debt? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think there was a debt vs. time graph on this site once.

Contrasting the Gipper, Bush "No New Taxes" I, Clinton, and Bush II, and even throwing in Carter and Ford, I'd say the Republicans have the spending records as wrapped up as the Yankees have total World Series championships.

Far from tripling the debt, LBJ actually agreed to a tax increase (sought by that now extinct breed of fiscally responsible Republicans) in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam War. As a result, in fiscal 1969 the federal budget actually had a small surplus -- not a deficit.

While Republicans love to trot out that old canard of fiscally irresponsible "old time Democrats," the truth is that Democratic administrations have been far more fiscally responsible in the past half century. Just check out the budget figures for presidential administrations since Kennedy's. It's not even close. The Republicans are the party of exploding deficits.

About this trade war with Europe that isn't getting much coverage in the news, how will it affect the economy in the coming months? I know it's not the most significant thing in the world, for it's not like we won't trade anything with other countriesm, but for the economy of the country, and specifically the economies of certain states, like Florida, what will the effect be?

Fatalities

American soldiers 294
British soldiers 20
Coalition soldiers 25
---
339 Since May 2

American 433
British 53
Coalition 25
---
511 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~2424 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 12,000
Coalition forces have risen to 12,000

People want to come here because the U.S. is a well-off developed country with comparatively high pay and empty space. It has nothing to do with whether they hate us or not.

There is no question that the international reputation of our country has taken a deep nose dive under W, and most of it was totally unnecessary. Maybe some folks don't care about this, but I do.

By an “old time Democrat” I was thinking of past mayors of New York City and other fiscally irresponsible municipalities, but LBJ is another good example. Of course Nelson Rockefeller, (a Republican), was one of the most profligate governors in the history of the state.

If the world hates the United States, but still trades with us, still invests here and still immigrates here then this “hate” has small consequence. But I don’t believe there is widespread hate. I know and have interviewed many immigrants, and they universally have an extremely positive view of American life and it’s institutions. If immigrants really hated it here, but only stayed to make money then they would return home upon retirement. I don’t see this either. People tend to vote with their feet. They leave places they don’t like to go to places they do like. This is why Communist countries had to turn themselves into prisons.

If Russia has a lot of immigration, then perhaps the world doesn’t hate Russia either. But I suspect that a lot of the immigration is ethnic Russians from the scattered colonies of the former Soviet Union (like the Baltic States) who feel uncomfortable in the new order of things.

Zarkov, hate has small consequences? then 9-11 is insignificant. It was only 19 people who did it.

Every year some 80 million individuals are born, most of them in poor countries, they will go where ever they find a better prospect of future.

Now if you ask me for a country where there is plenty of people who are full of hate, at least from what they say, then look no further than the USA, where calls to kill are so easily done.

DSW

Do you think the 9/11 attacks are the result of a worldwide hate against the US because of Bush? Then how do you account for the attack on the WTC in 1994—was that Clinton’s fault? How about the attacks in the rest of the world both before and after 9/11? Do you think any action of the US short of converting America into a properly pious Islamic republic would mollify the Islamic extremists?