« Derek Harvey - one less neocon | Main | An intruder in paradise ... »

29 July 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

different clue

Here is an article to warm the cockles of the Trumpian heart. It is
"Why The Trump Dynasty Will Last Sixteen Years" and it is by Edward Luttwak.
Here is the link.

Swamp Yankee

MRW, I wouldn't exactly call Jack Kelly a WASP. Where and when he grew up -- Oak Square in Brighton, MA, in the 50s; my father is his almost exact contemporary, knew Kelly when they were kids --calling him a WASP would have been a form of fighting words.

Protestant-Catholic differences in 1950s Boston -- hell, 1980s and 90s Boston -- were severe sources of social strain. They have tended to recede in importance as our various flunky mayors try to turn the town into another Manhattan, a playground for the transnational rich kids to do with what they like, but they still exist and were much more prominent 50 or even 20 years ago.

I think the end of The Troubles in Ireland had something to do with that as well, but I digress.

Babak Makkinejad

Yes, the United States was standing like a colossous in the international arena.
But, based on reliable testimony by foreign visitors of the time, Americans exhibitrd a very high moral caliber and adherence to ethical standards in comparisons to the countries from which these visitors hailed.

Babak Makkinejad

Having watched a lot of movies from 1930, say 1930 to 1948, it has been clear that the role of woman as the companion and helper of the man - captured in those movies - has been lost in contemporary US.


Ethnicity is a factor; mentality is the factor. The main reason neo-conservativism survives is that it appeals to our vanity.


And, while no one notices, Trump secures his legacy at a rapid pace:


Babak Makkinejad

Santa Monico as well, middle income familied are being driven out.



Yes, a wonderful pair of rose colored glasses.

Babak Makkinejad

Very good, thanks.


at the rate things are going, they'll all being wearing sunglasses at night in the WH.


I agree. For Trump, hate motivates more than love. His conception of love begins & ends at Self.
In his campaign, made a big deal about how bad life is in the US & the world (& how rotten were his competitors, on a personal level). He has sold that perception of overwhelming badness to generate fear, converting fear into a focused hate campaign. It's now national policy, it is his social contract with his popular base. It's the deal he's made to defend his presidency.

Laura Wilson

Jack, the other thing that makes Trump "different" as a businessman and more dangerous as a narcissist is the fact that he has NEVER worked for or with a board. He is completely on his own...with minions below.
Terrifying for a democratic process.

None of us should have any illusions at all.


California has had Republic governors 34 out of the last 50 years and 15 out of the last 25. That's hardly one-party state government.

robt willmann

We will see what A. Scaramucci, with or without sunglasses, says about the Russian government and Vladimir Putin announcing that U.S. embassy and counselor personnel are going to be expelled from from Russia in a number (around 755) to bring the remaining number there down to 455, which is the number of Russian personnel left in the U.S. after Obama did some expelling--



Old Microbiologist

I understand. I think working for the government for a long time makes you that way. When you always plan for the worst case and it almost always happens you end up creating a legend of extreme accuracy. On in the military is Murphy's Law a constant. I always planned for the worst, and I seem to be gifted at thinking up the real worst case, planning for it, and then end up being some kind of savior (to the subordinates but a doomsayer and pessimist to my superiors). There is a general lack of real think in the military and wild optimism seems to be the rule of the day. When you rain on their parade with realistic predictions and "alternate" scenarios you rapidly become unwanted (by some) at planning sessions.

I recall back in 2007 I was at a planning meeting working out the 5 and 10 year goals which I thought were as usual wildly optimistic. I stood up and mentioned the budget issues and problems in that woeful post-Vietnam era. If you recall how bad that was and it lasted until Reagan. My point was you cannot make long term assumptions about continuously increasing budgets during war time as eventually wars end and usually budgets crash after that. Our commander, a full bird (Medical Corps), said he was in grade school when Vietnam ended. That kind of took the wind out of my sails. In hindsight I never foresaw the possibility we would have multiple never-ending wars. So, my ability to forecast worst case scenarios seems to have failed me. Really, I am in shock at how many places we are either actively fighting (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria), supporting someone else fighting (Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia), attempting to create yet more revolutions (Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Venezuela) and ramping up for yet more invasions (Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, and Bolivia). Add in the Baltic states and pressure on Kaliningrad, the fight for the Spratly Islands, and the fight for the ownership of the Arctic and it gets wildly complicated. Add in that we have also funded some kind of Space force and this appears way out of control and far beyond my wildest imaginations. Thank God I am retired and now in the too old for deployment group.


That's a terrific article. Thanks for the link. The car affordability data chime closely with the arguments of James Howard Kunstler whose blog abounds in detail of the absolute reliance most Americans have on access to a car in working order. Absent a viable system of public transportation in most suburban, exurban and rural areas (according to Kunstler) lack of a car is unthinkable.


pacifica advocate

Yes. I have deleted some of the worst of your self-pitying "revolutionary" moaning and will continue to do so. pl


At Colonel Lang
Sir, with due respect I think that your prediction (Mooch wins against Gen.Kelly) will not happen, and Gen. Kelly will either prevail or at least come to a ´draw´. Why I think so - the entry of the General indicates that there is a full commitment of the truly patriotic wing of the MIC to make the administration adopt a smoother, dignified, old fashioned modus operandi - which would be more acceptable by the electorate and most importantly - by the mass media here and abroad. I think so because I imagine that there are several factions in the Military Industrial Complex and the ´truly patriotic wing´ is most likely based in the military; Of course, I might be wrong about the factions within the MIC.



IMO Trump is not capable of really adult behavior and as president he doesn't have to listen to any of these people and can continue on his way to fulfillment of his doom. I find it sad that a lot of you people think there is a community of interests between the military and the industrial base of the US. that just isn't so but the existence of that kind of conspiracy is a fondly held belief by many. This is as big a delusion as the idea of the existence of a parallel government in the Deep State. pl


Kathy, those high taxes were applied because after the war the ordinary workers of America had bulging bank accounts. They couldn’t spend money on anything during the war because all the necessary commodities needed for durable goods were rationed instead for war armament.

In 1944, Marriner Eccles (Chairman of the Fed) and the Secretary of the Treasury feared inflation—too much money chasing too few available goods raising prices—as a result. You combat inflation by raising taxes and reducing federal government spending. Our spending was monumental during WWII when we were creating guns, ships, and planes, etcetera, for England and ourselves, and it created the middle-class.

But Fed and Treasury didn’t want to impose onerous taxes on the returning soldiers, the poor, or the newly-created middle-class. They wanted them to flourish. So they applied taxes at the top end, and spent $15 billion on The Marshall Plan that put the returning soldiers back to work. (Of course, no one at the top ever had to pay them because the super-rich put their money into foundations and trusts.)

Taxes at the top may ‘lower’ the 1% but it does nothing for the people for the people at the bottom. You have to increase the income of those at the bottom to get economic growth and deal with inequality. You have to increase government spending and create jobs for those at the bottom. Business isn’t going to do it, contrary to popular opinion, until they see sales; no businessman worth his salt hires people he doesn’t need. And you can’t have sales unless your customers have income.

70% of the spending in this country is done by households, and if they don’t have any income, or they are saving money to pay down debt, then they ain’t buying the goods and services available. There are no sales, no “demand.” Only the federal government can rectify that in a downturn by spending. By increasing the deficit.

If the government spends $100 into the economy, but then takes $90 out in taxes, that means the government is running a deficit of $10. However, we’re so trained now to think of the deficit as a bad thing, that we never look at the other side of the balance sheet. When the government leaves $10 in the economy—its deficit—that’s the non-government sector’s surplus. The government’s deficit is an accounting record of a surplus someplace else in the economy. Somebody in the real economy has that $10.

When Simpson-Boles said they had a plan to reduce the deficit by $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years, everyone crowed and said that’s wonderful. But there’s another way of stating the exact same thing by looking at the other side of the balance sheet (ledger). If Simpson-Boles had said we have a plan to reduce the non-government sector’s surplus by $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years, everyone would have asked Why are you impoverishing the people?


What supported that "huge investment in education” was property taxes. The rich paid their fair share with that system. And it was fair. This was the traditional way that education was paid for in every state (in addition to federal transfers) during the first half of the century.

When Reagan became Governor and his pals convinced him that government was the problem, he reduced property taxes drastically which in turn reduced state revenue. The state made up for it by increasing sales and other taxes, which now put the financial burden on the working class and removed it from those who had mainly paid the freight. After a great media campaign to get Californian workers to believe the propaganda they voted against their interests.

With property taxes slashed, the price of houses soared. Banks were more than happy to loan money for mortgages as asset prices increased, and therefore their fees. A $70,000 house in the Hollywood Hills in 1976 was worth a couple of million by 1991.

The property taxes on a monster estate in Santa Barbara or Montecito went from $200,000/year to $22,000. Reagan’s pals up and down the CA coast were ecstatic. Reagan had to slash the education budget to help make ends meet.

Babak Makkinejad

In a city called Heredia are located branches of US companies that perform back-office and clerical work; at least a 100,000 jobs there used to be performed north of Rio Grande.

You must admit that the United States, under both Republican and Democratic governments, has presided over the greatest wealth transfer in human history.

The "Very Very Deep State" in US has accomplished, over 50 years, something that Communists could not even dream of.

Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

different clue

Pacifica Advocate,

Under President Bush Senior, quite a bit of the most egregious White Collar crime committed from within the S&Ls was prosecuted. Keating, whose five little helpers were named the Keating Five . . . was prosecuted.

Under President Bush Junior, some of the most utterly egregious White Collar crime from within the Corporate Leadership of certain fraud-engine bussinesses like Enron were prosecuted. (Although, as you say, the Bush Junior Administration rigidly rejected all warnings from the FBI about the ongoing fraudwave/crimewave in all sectors of Real Estate . . . thereby giving the fraudsters a running head start to keep stealing even more money).

President Obama the Wall Street Democrat was the first President to make sure that precisely zero FIRE sector perpetrators were prosecuted for anything. President Obama is the one who set that new lowest precedent. It is part of what he expects to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars for by a grateful Overclass over the decades to come. And his pro-crime Attorney General Eric Holder has gone back to Covington Burling (or whatever its called) to collect his lesser but still very real millions of dollars for a job well done.


Scaramucci is now out. This is breaking. Kelly forced the move it seems.

From what I understood, the reason Trump brought Scaramucci in was because he could trust him. He wanted a communications person who would be loyal at a critical juncture, i.e, when Trump was finally ready to clean house and make a move against the forces who want to end his presidency prematurely.

The Beaver

So the Mooch is out.
The new CoS has the last word :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad