Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (18708)	6/26/2012 6:09:21 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 85487

Obama Admin demands Egyptian military to hand over power to new Muslim Brotherhood president Posted by The Right Scoop on June 26th, 2012 in Politics \| 49 Comments [iframe class="DD_FBLIKE_AJAX_52604" src="http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-admin-demands-egyptian-military-to-hand-over-power-to-new-muslim-brotherhood-president/" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="0" scrolling="no" width="0"][/iframe] Andrew McCarthy wrote yesterday that the Obama admin is now demanding that the military in Egypt fulfill its promise and hand over power to their newly elected Islamist president: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is doing her part to help the Muslim Brotherhood implement the Turkey Strategy in Egypt. As I’ve pointed out before, if you want to see what’s going to happen in Egypt, look at Turkey, where the military was Atatürk’s bulwark against what would otherwise be the certainty that Islamists would overwhelm the pro-Western civil society the Kemalists labored against Islamic norms to build. It has taken Turkey’s Islamic supremacist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a decade of meticulous, determined gradualism to return Turkey to the Islamist camp. Things will go downhill much faster in Egypt, especially with the U.S. government suicidally siding with the America-hating Brotherhood. In Egypt, they have not had a nine-decade secularization project and the military, far from being committed to Western democracy, has always been rife with Islamic supremacists — several of whom went on to iconic careers in al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations (after getting their start, of course, in the Muslim Brotherhood). Here’s what Mrs. Clinton is telling the Arabic press: Egyptian military authorities must cede power to the winner of the country’s first post-Mubarak presidential elections, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted Wednesday. “We think that it is imperative that the military fulfill its promise to the Egyptian people to turn power over to the legitimate winner,” Clinton said in a discussion hosted at the State Department. Some of the actions by the military leadership in past days were “clearly troubling,” Clinton said, sitting with former secretary of state James Baker at the event to support the creation of the first US museum for diplomacy. ”The military has to assume an appropriate role which is not to interfere with, dominate or try to subvert the constitutional authority,” she warned. Today McCarthy writes, after noting that Hezbollah has congratulated Egypt on it’s new Islamist president, that the State Department wants you to know that Sec. Clinton was by no means endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood president when she demanded that the military turn over power to him: Meantime … the U.S. State Department wants you to understand that when, following President Obama’s congratulations to the Muslim Brotherhood’s victorious candidate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the Egyptian military hand over power to Morsi, that was in no way intended as an endorsement of Morsi and the Brotherhood. Thanks for that clarification.

To: koan who wrote (18708)	6/27/2012 2:48:26 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

The next president may be the next "Hoover". :)))

To: koan who wrote (18708)	6/27/2012 11:23:22 AM
From: Joe Btfsplk	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

koan, try real hard and see if you can understand this. Maybe you can find someone kind enough to translate in words of two syllables max: "FDR's Advisers Knew What Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman Don't The myth of Hoover's laissez faire. One persistent myth that libertarians and other free-market types have to unmask is that President Herbert Hoover's belief in laissez faire was responsible for dramatically worsening what became the Great Depression. The myth that Hoover stood around and did nothing while the economy collapsed gets repeated ad nauseum in the media by pundits including everyone from Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman to, most recently, MSNBC talk-show host Rachel Maddow. The punditry is right about one thing: Hoover can be blamed for turning what would have likely been a severe but short market correction in the wake of the artificial boom of the 1920s into a deep and long Great Depression. The reason, however, is not that Hoover did nothing, but that he did many things. Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets, as both his earlier work as secretary of commerce and his own description of his beliefs made clear. Faced with the worsening crisis in the fall of 1929, he expanded the federal government's role in a whole variety of ways. Long List of Interventions Without going into detail about any one of them, the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works, greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses, and greater enforcement of antitrust laws. Most important was Hoover's pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. (I ignore here the very important mistakes made by the Federal Reserve System in allowing the major deflation to take place, not because it was unimportant – it was crucial to making matters worse – but because Hoover had no real control over the Fed.) Hoover also proposed budgets that raised total federal expenditures by almost 50 percent in nominal dollars and over 60 percent when we adjust for the deflation. He ran budget deficits in 1931 and 1932 that were 52.5 percent and 43.3 percent of total federal expenditures those two years. No year under Roosevelt between 1933 and 1941 had a deficit that large. Finally, in 1932 Hoover presided over the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history, which among other things increased the income-tax rate on top incomes from 25 to 63 percent. This is hardly the program of a man committed to laissez faire. More interesting, though, is that people at the center of the action during the Great Depression knew that the differences between Hoover and FDR were small. For example, consider the "Brains Trust," the group of advisers who surrounded FDR in the campaign and after the election. Two of its most prominent members were Rex Tugwell and Raymond Moley, professors of economics and law, respectively. Tugwell and Moley recognized both at the time and subsequently that the policy initiatives of the New Deal owed much to ideas and programs that Hoover began. New Deal Owed Much to Hoover For example, Tugwell said of his time with FDR: "When it was all over, I once made a list of New Deal ventures begun during Hoover's years as Secretary of Commerce and then as president…. The New Deal owed much to what he had begun." In 1948 Moley wrote of that period: When we all burst into Washington … we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself. The essentials of the NRA, the PWA, the emergency relief setup were all there. Even the AAA was known to the Department of Agriculture. Only the TVA and the Securities Act was drawn from other sources. The RFC, probably the greatest recovery agency, was of course a Hoover measure, passed long before the inauguration. In the 1960s Tugwell wrote to Moley and said of Hoover, "[W]e were too hard on a man who really invented most of the devices we used." They were correct in claiming that a great part of the New Deal was anticipated by things Hoover did as president. Hoover dramatically worsened the depression, but not by sitting idly by while the economy crashed. It was his expansion of government intervention that did the damage, just as the massive intervention of the Bush and Obama administrations has likewise turned a market correction into a major recession, and perhaps worse. Intellectuals and pundits need to learn their history from somewhere other than Annie or a high school history textbook. Reading what their own hero's advisers said would be a start. If they don't get the story straight they will continue to be the enablers of the myth that promotes the very thing they are opposing: a repeat of the disastrous Hoover presidency." thefreemanonline.org