|
Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue  National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel National Review Online October 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
 7:00 pm EDTMonday, January 5 |
| Unindicted co-counterconspirator-in-chief Donald Luskin will appear on CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Don will be talking about the outlook for markets and the economy in the New Year. |
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
DON'T GO OVERBOARD It's positively encouraging to find that Obama may not be as effective as we had feared.There is plenty of anger out there (and in me too) and a great deal of it is justified. It looks to me like there is already emerging an Obama Derangement Syndrome and a "nutroots" on the right. Please, please don't go there!!
We are going to need you desperately for the next four years, and we need you to be outspoken but credible. What you yourself say is always fine, I am just wondering if appearing to endorse some of the letters you have pointed to is going to undermine your own message.
All of us are having the same problem -- PowerLine is clearly struggling with their feelings too, as are your other peers at the top-of-the-line conservative websites.
Deep breathing seems to work for me, and it's less obtrusive than primal screams :-)
Alison Brown
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:29 AM |
link 
BOYCOTT THE LIBERALS? First of all thanks for all your great writing, you are a rare shining light in an internet world of liberal intolerance. I am a business man in California, father of two, husband, and conservative thinker. I have been looking at what happen this past election, the hatred and intolerance by liberals against opposing view points, and disinterest in reality, facts, and history. I feel an overwhelming compulsion to help build a movement, grass roots conservatism, to take back our country. The media is a force that is almost impossible to fight with as it currently stands. NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, and CBS are completely unchecked when it comes to journalistic honesty and although we all complain about it, nothing will change unless we put a hurting on them financially. My concept isn't new and might be a tad bit extreme, but I firmly believe that in a unified group we can not only send a message, but perhaps weaken these liberal rags and organizations to our benefit.\
Here I sit in my home office, sipping coffee, and after reading the Ventura County Star, our local liberal rag bitching once again at their reporting of our new President Elect. They reported his announcement of his "Economic Stimulus Package" as they call it. We know what it really is. So once again instead of complaining I think we need to take our might and start a ground level movement to put a financial hurt on the liberal media in a planned and organized fashion. I'm reaching out to you for help. We cannot simply begin a boycott, we need to reach out to all conservative media outlets, whether it be newspaper, internet blog, tv, or radio, and make and announcement something like the following:
"Conservatives across the United States, in an effort to preserve the principles of our Founding Fathers, protect our children, and to promote justice and intellectual honestly, will begin a comprehensive boycott of all liberal media organizations indefinitely. As we have seen journalistic integrity disappear, we have only one recourse which is to insure that this media bias no longer goes unchecked. Blah, blah, blah."By no means am I a writer, but I firmly believe people don't know the truth, are getting the wrong message, and the only way to combat this is financially. This is the beauty of a free market system, right? You have reach, intelligence, skills, and abilities. I am asking for help in this endeavor but I'm out of my realm. I need help from many like yourself to plan and get this message across. Call it vengeance if you will, but I want them to pay and feel repercussions based on their actions. I look forward to your help.
Matt Watson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:28 AM |
link
OBAMUNISM Thank you for the link to Change.gov. The ravings of the megalomanics of Obamunism promise us a strong dose of pernicious socialism in these next few years.
What struck me first, though, was the logo that included the following: "Office of The President-Elect." In my 60 years I have never heard of this "office." While Obama's leftist dissemblers will say that this means his physical office (communists are great at twisting words) the intent is to create a parallelism between the President-Elect, not sworn into office until January 20th, and the President, sworn in until the 20th. We are to assume the Dear Leader, so esteemed in the eyes of a genuflecting world, is, because of his very pure and messianic nature, rising to the equivalence of the current President without the sanction of the swearing in ceremony. In other words, he needs no formal sanction, for the Mob anointed him on November 4th. Until January 20th, he remains the first and only person to ever hold the 'Office of President-Elect.'
Second: In my years of following the collective political nonsense of the 'democratic process,' I've seen charlatans who believe they have been chosen by God. The Dear Leader is the first to be God. His John the Baptist was Louis Farrakhan, who growled to a frenzied crowd earlier this year, that "When the messiah speaks, the youth will hear. And the messiah IS absolutely speaking." The messiah he spoke of was Barack Hussein Obama. Chris Matthews seconded Farrakhan's nonsense, "This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the new testament." American Prospect writer Ezra Klein made this confession of faith: "He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh." "The Word made flesh" is a Christian reference to Christ. To Klein, Obama is at least Christ-like, if not the second coming of Christ.
Finally, on Change.gov we see inklings of Dear Leader's apparent divinity. He graciously includes the mere mortal Biden as a cooperator in his divine acts. One such act is the Lazarus-like raising of the minimum wage. We lessers are informed that "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs." And the workers of the world united will come out from their tombs to live again freed from the shackles of evil Republican capitalism! "Lazarus come hither!"
Also, "Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country." How generous of the two to pony up their own money for these "investments." Will this be done at Cana as Obama turns water into inflated fiat currency?
All national politicians, with the exception of Dr. Ron Paul, seem to be full of themselves and BS. Obama's effusions would be the ravings of just another slimy politician if it were not for the Cult of the Divine Leader that has emerged and will undoubtedly be nurtured through these dismal years of Obamunism.
Dario McDarby
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:12 AM |
link
Friday, November 07, 2008
I, I, I... HE, HE, HE I read your posting about the writer who thinks Obama writes all his own speeches. I wrote this letter to the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday:Mr. Obama,I haven't heard back yet, doesn't look that it'll be published. But they published this one:
I didn't vote for you - I'm skeptical of anyone who pens two autobiographies...and by age 45 to that, but I'm not disappointed that you've won. So, as I listened to your acceptance speech I got caught up in the historic aspect of the moment. I grew to expected poetry and ubiquitous hyperbole from you so, I was bearing with it and for most part I was enjoying the speech. That is, until you did Moses: "I promise you: We'll get there! I promise you!" (I missed where "There" was supposed to be; a bit worried about that...) You lost me at that moment. What bothers me even more is that constant emphasis on "I". You are a good speaker, no body can question your political skills and your achievement. There's no need and no pressure for you to try to out do Lincoln, John Kennedy, Dr. King and Regan in one shot before you even have taken the office. You have the support and the best wishes of the nation. We believe that you can be a great president for the very challenging times. Just take it easy! We don't expect you to walk on water and deliver us to: "There". Don't buy into the hype, there's enough of real and very complex issues on your plate from the very start.
America has arrived at the epiphany of its democracy. In the backdrop of a world in conflict with a domestic crisis at home, this country stands at the threshold of a new era to decide whether it takes command of its destiny now or allows the forces of dissipation to end what we knew of the greatness it once had."He" this. "He" that. Our Dear Leader! I just can see books for little kids with pictures of Barack with children, Barack with workers, Barack with farmers, Barack with agroworkers etc.
As one president leaves office in virtual disgrace, another will take his place with our fragile hope that this nation under his imperatives will again affirm its unity to restore what has been lost and what can be returned to this and future generations.
Barack Obama is not only the president-elect, chosen to enact a contrasting agenda from the last eight years, but a symbol to rescue America from its destructive divisiveness and lift it from the depths of political, social and economic despair.
With our non-partisan support he can elevate all of us with new pride and patriotism that can fend off any adversary or any foe that threatens the lifeblood of this society.
Obama can be this man. We, all of us, must think of him as our president, our leader and our ally when we envision our mutual goals as he conducts the office of the president of the United States.
Marek M. Piorkowski
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:27 PM |
link
Saturday, November 01, 2008
THE LAST SNOWBALL Why would Warren Buffett be so vocal in his support of Barack Obama, whose entire agenda is oriented toward the destruction of the very rules and policies that made his great success possible? Here is one hypothesis:From Alice Schroeder’s brilliant new book The Snowball we know that:
a) Buffett is extremely driven. He makes unstinting, superhuman efforts to get what he wants. Schroeder highlights this urge to “collect” (stocks, companies, media power) repeatedly in her biography.
b) Buffett is very concerned with “keeping score”. According to Schroeder, he pays a lot of attention to his rank as an investor, and his place in the ranks of wealthy persons.
Also, Buffett's partner, Charlie Munger, has written brilliantly about the "incentive bias": if you want to understand human behavior, look at the incentives. One might assume that Buffett would rigorously follow the dictates of the "incentive bias". Why not?
Now, seemingly, Buffett has achieved all possible earthly goals: he is the world’s wealthiest man, he flies around the world in his own jet with beautiful female journalists, he has made the largest gift to charity in history. And, perhaps above all, he is known as the greatest investor in history.
So far.
So, what final victory is left in the face of death? That victory would be to remain the world’s greatest investor FOREVER.
Buffett has alluded to his view of his portfolio as his “Mona Lisa”. His work of art. But works of art cannot be superceded, while, generally, any investment track record can indeed be superceded. In short: there may be only one way to achieve that final, immortal goal:
Use resources to change the game of Capitalism itself so that no one, at any future time, can duplicate his record.
One could, literally, “rest easy” after that final goal is achieved. While this is mere conjecture, one can possibly infer this motivation from Schroeder’s probing portrait.
Manny Mendelson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:48 PM |
link
Thursday, October 12, 2006
GOOD QUESTION Has anyone done any work on the Treasary Reciept on Roth Rollover taxes from 1998-2001?My better half and I left a company in 1998 after working for that company for 13 years. I Rollover her and my 401k, into an IRA account and then rollover half of that amount into an Roth account. Since the accounts were new that year, the tax event was spread over the next 4 years. This added $12,500 to my A.G.I. and $10,000 to her A.G.I for the next 4 years. The marginal tax rate was about 25%.
Our household taxes were around $35,000 in 2000, and are now down to around $23,000.
How much and how many people paid additional taxes to help balance to decifit. I have not heard anyone make this point with Robert Reich on Kudlow & Co.
Without this additional tax revenue, would the budget have been balance? Are we talking 1% or 10% of additional income?
Y2K was a gift to Clinton. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't have screw up Y2K!!!
Tom Pearson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:15 PM |
link
Monday, July 31, 2006
BUSH FRIED? The media, once again, blows a natural occurrence out of proportion; and inconspicuously, with a little help from PETA and Al Gore, blames Bush and SUV owners for another record-breaking summer. With all the hype about hot temps, two questions come to mind: Is summer supposed to be hot? What did people do before central air?Because of our pampered culture, it's impossible to tolerate such extreme seasons without it being a perfect 71 degrees year-round. Yes, summer is supposed to be hot. I can't remember one summer in my life without it being hot. But I have an obvious remedy to avoid the hot weather - simply switch hemispheres for a season! My sister-in-law just arrived home from a two-month trip to Australia, where she spent most of the summer with a coat and heater. But if our media moves Down Under, you may hear about the coldest summer on record.
Also, I can't help but wonder what people did before air conditioning. As for those who came before us, namely within the past five centuries, what did the women do with the yards of fabric and layers of petticoats they dragged behind them? I'm convinced that what ultimately got them through the summer were the flutter fans. If used correctly, those fans must have blown more air onto their faces and necks than any modern AC would.
Our city holds a charity drive every summer, during the hottest week, to collect fans and distribute them to the "needy." First, why do they wait until it's over 100 degrees? Buy out the stock at Wal-Mart at the end of summer while they're on sale, and distribute them out then!
Second, all welfarians (those on welfare) are not necessarily needy. Many times, we, the working class, rush to the need of welfarians after they spend our tax money on double bass car speakers, $300 shoes, and imported drugs. Instead of electric fans, my advice would be to pass out those little miraculous flutter fans to the welfarians. Not only would it help them to stay cool, it would also give them the satisfaction of actually working for something they need.
Despite all the past successes in surviving summers without AC, I'm still waiting for someone to blame Bush for the heat wave. In the meantime, chill.
Sarah Coley
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:26 PM |
link
Friday, July 28, 2006
DESIRE AND PERSISTENCE I have some expertise in this area, I think ["Have You Considered Redistributing Your Desire?" 7/25/2006]. I teach in a Masters of Public Administration Program. We have some 125 students in the program, of whom about 100 are taking classes during any given semester. Probably 60% are "in service" (i.e. already working in a public admin or civil service position or for a non-profit), 30% are working full-time outside of govt or NPOs and 10% are full-time students.I have had students who I later found had worse personal situations than the one described. It didn't always stop them. Mostly it appears to me to be a question of desire and persistence. The op ed writer doesn't obviously display much of either.
Sure, it's tough, but my good students work really hard, produce great work, and finish the course. Full-time students frequently finish in 2 years while the others take up to 4.
It is a balancing act, but it is being done routinely by my students.
OTOH, I do have a (thankfully small) number of student whiners. It's not just free grad school they seek, it's free everything, including grades and a degree. My guess is the op ed person would fit in the latter. It would be interesting to talk confidentially to her profs and find out.
James Ivers
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:10 PM |
link
WHO'S "UPPER CLASS" NOW? I sometimes wonder how opinion pieces like these ["Have You Considered Redistributing Your Desire?" 7/25/2006] can actually be printed in major newspapers. The author is complaining about graduate school only being available for the "upper class" in society and how she is not part of that "upper class". What amazes me is how her own situation contradicts her point? "Is access to graduate education in America exclusively for the upper class? As a first-year graduate student struggling to make ends meet, I believe the answer is yes." - If graduate education in America (I guess, as opposed to every where else in the world) is exclusively for the upper class, then how is the author a graduate student? Is she a part of the "upper class" or has she lied to infiltrate this elite society of wealth in order to get an education? All she says throughout the article is that she is struggling...so, she is complaining that paying for graduate school is not easy. She states "It's clear that a federal need-based grant program for graduate students must be created. This would help level the playing field by creating access to graduate programs for students -- access based on merit and ambition rather than economic resources." This translates into "I am attending and paying for graduate school but finding it difficult. Would the government please force someone to pay for my education since I do not want to go through these hard times?" It is not a "need-based" program she wants, but a "wants-based" program.
And, as a man who grew up in a small town in Oklahoma (~800 people), who lived in a trailer all his childhood, whose father passed away when he was 17, and whose mother works as a janitor, I graduated with a Master's degree from Princeton University without any government aid - yes, an Ivy League school. I guess the author will have to categorize me and my family as "upper class" now.
Shawn Smith
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:23 AM |
link
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
GRASSROOTS LOGIC I paid into Social Security for 37 years ["Long Live Social Security Reform", April 21, 2006]. My last statement reveals that my contributions and my "employers" contributions totaled over 200K. I shall be 56 in October. I recognize the dilemma and humbly make the following suggestions:For those 60 and over, the full meal deal.
55-59 95% of your current defined benefit.
50-54 90%
45-49 85%
40-44 80%
Below 40, 75%
Raise the age for full benefits to 67 for those between 50 and 59. 68 for those in their 40s. 70 for everyone else. Raise the income limit to 500K upon which the tax is applied and index it.
I am willing to be reasonable. I do, however, intend to collect some of that 200K. The absolute tragedy of social security is that had I been allowed to invest my money properly, I would have a secure retirement.
I am not a stockholder in this country. I am a stakeholder! I have worked and paid taxes for over 40 years (and plan on working well into my 60s). I have served in the military. I have been a productive citizen, husband and father. I do not believe it is bad form to suggest that yes...I am entitled to my place in the Sun in my old age. I have earned it.
I am willing to be patriotic. I am willing to make a sacrifice for the greater good of this beloved land. It must be said, however, that I only feel contempt for a Congress that has used this money as nothing more than a slush fund. They carry on about Enron. Enron can't hold a candle to what Congress has done to Social Security.
One more thing. A Congress whose members retire with 6 figure pensions, gold plated medical benefits and fabulously lucrative careers as lobbyists .... has no face on this issue.
Paul Evans
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:24 AM |
link
Friday, December 30, 2005
ZERO DYNAMICS THINKING I enjoyed your discussion of zero sum thinking yesterday ["Them's Fighting Words" 12/29/2005] and I applaud your willingness to post dissenting views and address them directly.
I've thought about the mindset of leftist economics and I think there are two other more important distinctions between them and free market oriented thinkers.
* Static versus dynamic thinking. That is, policy decisions are analyzed purely in the context of today's variables with no concept of how changing the rules of the game might change how people play it in the future. That's why staticists ridicule the Laffer curve despite it's almost tautological obviousness to dynamists.
* Excessive association of morality to
financial/economic decisions. It's "bad" for people to be rich when others have unmet needs or wants.
People "ought" to spend their money on more morally pure things. This leads to statist policies as people
(shockingly!) inevitably fail to care for others before themselves.
I think the zero sum thinking you reference is mostly an outgrowth of their static models of the economy, but more importantly are mostly used as rhetorical devices with which to bash the morals of those who disagree with them.
Trevor Hicks
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:22 PM |
link
Sunday, October 16, 2005
CAPITALISM EQUALS HEALTH? With regards to EU Rota's comments on life expectancy differences between the US and Western Europe ["What Differences" [October 13, 2005], he leaves out one important factor: Americans live riskier lifestyles in general. We drive more cars (and as a result have more accidents and deaths), do more drugs, are far more obese, and generally have riskier sex lives (most of these problems are especially prevalent in the black community). A better comparison between health care systems would involve life expectancy after turning 65, because a) most of the irresponsible people have died off and b) most of our health care consumption occurs after we turn 65. As it turns out, American life expectancy after 65 (16.1 years for men as of 1999) falls less than half a year short of France and Canada (each at about 16.5 years for men, according to the CDC). Also, it is interesting to note that Hong Kong, the most capitalist country on Earth, ranks No. 1 in this category. Puts a nice little hole in Krugman's theory, don't you think?Peter Johnson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:18 AM |
link