US Politics: Passing Gas In Public is Abhorrent Behavior

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

A week in review, flip-flops edition:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/13/president-trump-king-of-flip-flops-continued/?utm_term=.4957336d3850

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't exactly address my comment. I have no doubt that there was a desire for regime change, but that's not the same as a Presidential candidate having a pre-planned strategy for doing it and just waiting and hoping for a justification to execute it. 

I'm not sure if Dubya did that. I'm pretty sure though of a few things 1) the Neocons got the upper hand in his administration over the more realist bunch, 2) they did in fact use the "war on terror" as justification to invade Iraq, 3) the real reason for invading Iraq was because of neocon aims, but the justification got sold as something else to the public, 4) various statements made by them in the 1990s would seem to lend credence to statements 1,2,3.

Before, incurious George became president, I'm not sure if he had strong foreign policy views. He wasn't exactly known as an intellectual sort. But, it would appear he did fall under the spell of the neocons. Not saying that excuses him in any way shape or form. When lives are the line, being willfully ignorant isn't an excuse.

[DreamSongs]

We dropped a MOAB on Afghanistan.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DreamSongs said:

We dropped a MOAB on Afghanistan.

I'm finding it scary how much I've agreed with Bill Kristol over the past year.

 

[BloodRider]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm finding it scary how much I've agreed with Bill Kristol over the past year.

 

We had it in this very thread.  A horde of Macedonian Trolls.

Thing is - Clinton coulda navigated the Russian shoals.  Trump will likely not.  

[OldGimletEye]

Now, conservative sorts of people. I’m going to suggest here that one’s alleged awesomey awesomest bestest ever bidness experience may not always be the the best guide to having economic opinions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/12/trump-just-broke-with-two-more-presidential-norms/

Quote

“I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you,” Trump said, when asked if he would consider reappointing Federal Reserve chair Janet L. Yellen to her post after her term is up on Feb. 3.

Now conservative sorts of people, I’m going to suggest that the reason to have a “low interest rate policy” isn’t so real estate guys like Trump can get low interest loans on awesomey awesome real estate deals. It’s cause if you kind of ball park accept a Wicksellian framework, you want to make sure the real rate of interest equals the natural rate of interest in order to restore full employment, which might be something you care about if, you know, your kinda of an old school full employment Democrat.

Also, conservative sorts of people, if any thing, there is worry that the future interest rates might be too low, as that might bring as too close to ZLB episodes, not that conservative sorts of people would worry about that thing. Low interest rates for the sake of low interest rates isn't the point.

Quote

“I like her, I respect her,” Trump added about Yellen. About her potential reappointment, he said, “It’s very early.”

Well, that's interesting. I remember back in the day when he accused her of just playing team Democrat, rather than being a competent technocrat that she is.

Quote

The U.S. economy looks much stronger than other major economies, and the United States is one of the only nations where the central bank is beginning to raise interest rates. Higher interest rates would encourage investment to flow to the United States as investors seek higher rates of return, pushing up the value of the dollar.

Now conservative sorts of people, lets recall the interest rate parity condition. And do you know, what causes interest rates to rise? Deficit financed tax cuts for the wealthy that’s what. Now how many pro-Trumpsters realized that?

Quote

During the presidential campaign, Trump told CNBC that Yellen should be “ashamed” of herself for keeping rates low. His campaign also featured her in an ad that criticized “those who control the levers of power in Washington.”

But see that was different. He was trying to win an election!!!

Quote

As a real estate developer who had to take on debt, Trump had previously described himself as someone who “always loved” low interest rates.

Because, you know, his "awesome" real estate experience is what matters here.

 

Now conservative sorts of people, it may just be the case, that, that, pre-tax income isn’t independent of tax rates. I’ll just throw that out there.

http://voxeu.org/article/tax-reforms-and-top-incomes

Quote

Our findings suggest that tax progressivity changes influence pre-tax income inequality. Focusing on large, progressivity-reducing tax reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, we can show that they had a positive, increasing effect on top income shares in all the countries we studied. The nature of our top income data means that it would be impossible to make a detailed inquiry into the precise mechanisms behind this result, but our examinations point to a role for tax avoidance rather than real responses. We hope that our study will stimulate further research into the behavioural responses to tax reforms, so that we can improve our understanding of the relationship between taxation and inequality.

 

Other things I need to save to the hard disk in the old brain housing group:

http://cdn.equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/10103750/04112017-WP-effects-of-income-tax-changes-on-economic-activity.pdf

Quote

This paper quantifies the importance of the distribution of tax changes for their overall impact on economic activity. I construct a new data series of tax changes by income group from tax return data. I use this series and variation from the income distribution across states and federal tax shocks to estimate the effects of tax changes for different groups. I find that the stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for the top 10% is weak to negligible over a business cycle frequency. These effects are not confounded by changes in progressive spending, state trends, or prior economic conditions. The effects seem to come from labor supply responses as well as increased consumption and investment.

 

[Relic]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think in Neo Con circles there was always a desire for regime change in Iraq, even in the 1990s, before Dubya ever ran for President or let anyone know he wanted to be President. I believe after the first Gulf War, many of the Neo Cons were upset with Bush I over not going into Iraq and removing Saddam. At that time, it would seem  that Bush I was more influenced by the realist camp of thinking, people like Scowcroft and Powell, than the Neocons. It would seem to me that under Dubya's administration, the Neo Cons* were able to get the upper hand in foreign policy disputes.

When Paul Wolfowitz et al. pushed for the invasion of Iraq, just as we were sending in troops into Afghanistan, I think he was probably very much fulfilling a Neocon dream that goes back to the early or mid 1990s.

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC 

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Hmm, maybe that letter is what I was thinking about. And sorry OGE, I meant to imply the people around Bush, not Dubya himself.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Hmm, maybe that letter is what I was thinking about. And sorry OGE, I meant to imply the people around Bush, not Dubya himself.

No worries.

Yeah that letter certainly helps to make the case that a lot of this stuff started in the 1990s. And I think there is other stuff out there if you really look for it.

Also, too, just consider basic Neocon ideology. I forget who said it, maybe it was Michael Lind, but it was basically the necons took the idea of "Permanent Revolution" and turned it into "Permanent War". Before, the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't like their intellectual history and outlook was a secret.

[Kalbear]

Here's an interesting bit - China may be stepping up their efforts against North Korea thanks to Trump. Seriously. (possibly because they are worried that if they don't, Trump will 'handle it' in a horrible way, but STILL)

Quote

 

Something interesting is happening in China and perhaps President Trump deserves some credit.

For the first time, the Chinese government appears to have laid down a bottom-line with North Korea and is threatening Pyongyang with a response of “unprecedented ferocity” if the government of Kim Jong Un goes ahead with a test of either an intercontinental ballistic missile or a nuclear device. North Korea will celebrate the 105th anniversary of the birth of its founder, Kim Il Sung, on Saturday, and some type of military show of force is expected.

In an editorial in the semi-official Global Times on April 12, Pyongyang was put on notice that it must reign in its nuclear ambitions, or else China’s oil shipments to North Korea could be “severely limited.” It is extraordinary for China to make this kind of threat. For more than a decade, as part of its strategy to prop up one of its only allies, China refused to allow the U.N. Security Council to even consider cutting oil shipments to the north. Beijing’s calculus was that the maintenance of the North Korean regime took precedence over everything. Now Beijing seems to be reconsidering its position.

 

 

[Toth]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's an interesting bit - China may be stepping up their efforts against North Korea thanks to Trump. Seriously. (possibly because they are worried that if they don't, Trump will 'handle it' in a horrible way, but STILL)

I am afraid you may be right. Even though from what I've read the North-Korean boy-dictator allowed the relations with China to cool down quite a lot over the past few years. Unsurprisingly, I'd think, since the Chinese leadership values regional stability to keep up their trade income. Trump or not, I suppose they would try anything to de-escalate the situation anyway.

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

He sounds more like Idi Amin every time he opens his mouth and / or twits.

How long do you think it'll be until he goes Full Amin and declares himself King of Scotland?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, too, just consider basic Neocon ideology. I forget who said it, maybe it was Michael Lind, but it was basically the necons took the idea of "Permanent Revolution" and turned it into "Permanent War". Before, the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't like their intellectual history and outlook was a secret.

You're correct about the ideology, but I think the shift from permanent revolution to permanent war is a bit older than their modern movement. 

 

On an unrelated note, it sounds like we just spent over $300,000,000.00 to bomb some caves. It will be interesting to see the independent reporting of the aftermath. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

On an unrelated note, it sounds like we just spent over $300,000,000.00 to bomb some caves. It will be interesting to see the independent reporting of the aftermath. 

It cost $314m to develop. It costs $16m per bomb. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You're correct about the ideology, but I think the shift from permanent revolution to permanent war is a bit older than their modern movement. 

Well yes it was. The shift I mean.

As to their "modern movement", I think that pretty much solidified at least by the late 1970s or early 1980s.

 As I understand them, many of them began on the anti-Stalinist left. And they pretty much consolidated their rather hawkish and interventionist views in the late 1960s or 1970s. With the Democratic Party increasingly having a bad taste in its mouth over Vietnam, many of them who were Democrats went over to the Republican Party, where their worldview didn't quite take over the Republican Party establishment overnight, where the realist camp still held sway. It would seem to me, that they did come to prominence under Dubya, though they had joined the Republican Party establishment say around the 1970s or 1980s.  When they did come to prominence under Dubya, I think their views were rather well developed.

Interestingly enough, many of them didn't care for Trump, and actually preferred Hillary. I hope they don't try to come back into the Democratic Party, because, in my view, they shouldn't be welcomed back. And that is a reason why I don't have much kind to say about people like Samantha Powers, who just seems a little too neo-conish for my taste.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Toth said:

I am afraid you may be right. Even though from what I've read the North-Korean boy-dictator allowed the relations with China to cool down quite a lot over the past few years. Unsurprisingly, I'd think, since the Chinese leadership values regional stability to keep up their trade income. Trump or not, I suppose they would try anything to de-escalate the situation anyway.

There's a lot of playing percentages going on from the Chinese side. Kim Jong-il, for all of his bluster and rhetoric, was something of a realist and didn't believe his own hype. Kim Jong-un seems to be something of a fantasist and does believe his own hype, which is a scary-as-shit combination when you add nukes and his missile programme. I think China has been slow to realise that North Korea wasn't simply going to toe the line any more.

China realised a while ago that the "usual stuff" wasn't working with North Korea and they were looking at the potential collapse of the regime (either from their own stupidity or Kim Jong-un triggering a confrontation with the United States) and seem to have been caught on the hop about what to do about it, since they don't particularly want hordes of refugees fleeing across the border, which might happen if they pulled the plug on their fuel and food supplies. They also don't really want the Korean peninsula reunified as an American-allied state, but they may prefer that to the Korean peninsula being devastated in a war (nuclear or otherwise).

So I think we might see China stepping up to the plate a bit more. How far that goes (China sending "military advisors" - say, three million of them - into the country to "ease tensions" and maybe drop Kim Jong-un down a well somewhere and select someone more compliant to rule the country may be their preferred option but that might not be in keeping with China's style these days) remains to be seen. It may also be too late. If North Korea says fuck it and tests a nuke in the next couple of days, Trump may well pull a Syria and Tomahawk the nuclear sites and then absolutely all hell breaks loose.

[Werthead]

Huh. McMaster has developed a plan to use a small US ground force - 10-20,000 troops - to capture Raqqa. Apparently the Syrian opposition and the Turks are unhappy with the current best chance to take the city, which involves the Kurds, because of obvious longstanding reasons. The problem is that the Kurds are the best-placed force to do it (they've already cut a lot of the city off from the north) and the only force that looks capable of doing it, but this is politically difficult. Also, the Kurds with their numbers and equipment would take quite a long time to do it.

McMaster's thought is for a US force to crack the nut of the city, help take it and then pull out without getting bogged down. Which does beg the question of whom they give the city to afterwards.

So far it doesn't sound like the plan is gaining much traction in the White House, but who the hell knows. Trump might decide to endorse it tomorrow after watching Delta Force as part of a Chuck Norris marathon.

[Werthead]

This could get real. Similar to the noises being made just before the attack on Syria.

Quote

 

The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

North Korea has warned that a "big event" is near, and U.S. officials say signs point to a nuclear test that could come as early as this weekend.

The intelligence officials told NBC News that the U.S. has positioned two destroyers capable of shooting Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, one just 300 miles from the North Korean nuclear test site.

American heavy bombers are also positioned in Guam to attack North Korea should it be necessary, and earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group was being diverted to the area.

"Two things are coming together this weekend," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, former commander of NATO and an NBC analyst. "One is the distinct possibility of a sixth North Korean nuclear weapons detonation and the other is an American carrier strike group, a great deal of firepower headed right at the Korean Peninsula."

The U.S. is aware that simply preparing an attack, even if it will only be launched if there is an "imminent" North Korean action, increases the danger of provoking a large conflict, multiple sources told NBC News.

"It's high stakes," a senior intelligence official directly involved in the planning told NBC News. "We are trying to communicate our level of concern and the existence of many military options to dissuade the North first."

"It's a feat that we've never achieved before but there is a new sense of resolve here," the official said, referring to the White House.

 

Normally I'd say the chances of anyone outside even slightly impacting on Kim Jong-un's resolve would be slight, but China has also slammed warnings down on North Korea hard. Hopefully that might get them to back down.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This could get real. Similar to the noises being made just before the attack on Syria.

Normally I'd say the chances of anyone outside even slightly impacting on Kim Jong-un's resolve would be slight, but China has also slammed warnings down on North Korea hard. Hopefully that might get them to back down.

Can KJU hold his position in NK if he blinks?  

[Relic]

For a guy who is supposedly on his way out Bannon's agenda of distracting people while he plots out a war which pits the "Judeo-Christian West" against the rest of the world seems quite intact.