I almost skipped the extended version of his interview with Grover Norquist when I saw how long it was.
After 7 minutes on air, another 20 can be found online, it is well worth watching.
If you ask me John tore him up, put him back together, repeat 14 times or more. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-march-12-2012-grover-norquist Grover Norquist's new book, Debacle, is about how weak the first recovery where the majority of the US House had signed his no taxes pledge was. In other words, the economic debacle is Obama's fault for his radical Socialist policies (as if actual Socialist policies would not create a stronger recovery, duh, that's what it does, that's what it's for), which anyone could have predicted (as some did) way ahead of time. Never mind that we are basically still under the Bush tax code. It's the ultimate in disaster capitalism, and he's their core theorist.
They help create the disaster, he sells us all the solutions (which is more of the same).
This makes New Orleans look like very small change (pun intended). They name things with such equanimity, "Chapt. 5 Regulatory Thuggery" so you know you can trust them not to be partisan. GROVER NORQUIST vs CHRIS MATTHEWS
the pledge, deficit, and default Jul 2011 http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/debacle-grover-norquist-case-against-president-obama-160608333.html
With video, Americans for Tax Reform's Daily Ticker interviews the Holy Founding Father. Young Turks, Cenc has some choice words for Norquist Re: liberal name calling "parasites".
The Introduction, selections from Chapt 1, and Notes, from Debacle is free at Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0qkjSirmrgEC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=debacle+norquist&source=bl&ots=o64Z5cSBY-&sig=kjIsNpM6fx6sJdvK8YgeMiROcXc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iGNkT8egDunc0QGNsMGVCA&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=debacle%20norquist&f=false Other Excerpts
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-102447.html – Chapt.6
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/read-excerpt-from-john-r-lott-jr-and-grover-g-norquists-new-book-debacle/ – Chapt.?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2859634/posts – Chapt. 3 Grover Norquist's name comes before co-author John R. Lott, Jr. who is also a corporate intelectual professional heavy weight himself. To the degree that I refer to Grover Norquist instead of both authors, my excuse is that they all group-think with one mind anyway, like the borg, the ultimate socialization of the corporate marketplace of ideas. They all agree that everything that has exacerbated mal-distrubution is good. Norquist is convenient to focus on because he has focused on one single thing, the final solution to government. Review of "Introduction; The Players" from "Debacle" on Google Books: I'm no big fan of Obama, as any other Green Party volunteer operative fully understands, but this is hard to read.
It is the tried and false, and very tired, old just plain slander of the left, with all the specifics made applicable to Barak. He promised to be sensibly moderate and not be a lefty. "But once in office, he took a hard left turn: overseeing a massive 21 percent increase in federal government spending from 2008 to 2011, creating the largest deficits that the United States had ever seen" (Which had nothing at all to do with the previous sensible moderate who started a couple wars to raise the price of oil, cut taxes a whole lot, especially on the rich and on corporations that he and his buddies owned, and eliminated so many regulations the whole planet's economy tanked due to fraud.) Of course, Grover himself is still a big proponent of less regulation, as he shows in Chapt.6, "Step 9: Reduce the Regulatory Burden" (see http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-102447.html – also – "DEBACLE is must-reading for everyone concerned about America’s economic future." while I wish this wan't true, it seems it is – if you don't know what crap they're peddling you won't know how easy it is to tear it up – "The sooner the Republicans win control of the Congress and presidency, the sooner we can begin to turn the country around." This seems to be the actual foundation upon which these political theories are erected, republican Party wins, all else be damned). Obama rationing health care is directly implied by Larry Summers's listing of cutting redundant, harmful, and needless surgeries among the ways to save $700 million/yr in "our" health care? "system". Obama is a socialist because of all the money he borrowed to the banks, cut from banks' taxes, and created by paying the banks to borrow it to us so we could lend it to them free of interest (standard minting dollars practice), "which have given us historic deficits" (and which have nothing to do with people not having enough money in circulation to get jobs to pay taxes on). Yes, that money should have been put into circulation, and yes, then even I would proclaim it Socialism, but giving it to the banks is a specific kind of socialism that is considered very right wing and is often best left unnamed [not Socialism, per se, itself, but National(ist) Socialism]. Obama has a long time agenda against the right to bear arms, as evidenced by Grover's description of unattributed third party reports, and Obama's support for the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which was probably mostly written in the US State Dept. Everyone who works for Obama is a bright young academic with no real world experience "outside academia and government," (unlike Norquist, who knows what it's like in the real world of running a non-profit with several rich angel donors), "elitists" (unlike Republicans, who never do the bidding of the elite for they see themselves spiritually as in brotherhood with every earthling) "who think they know what's best for others" (completely unlike certain other people), "that from their ivory towers they (sic) think that they can micromanage people's lives" (totally unlike those who feel we need lower taxes whether we want them or not). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott – "an American academic and political commentator. He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the non-academic conservative American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, and his areas of research include econometrics, law and economics, public choice theory, industrial organization, public finance, microeconomics, labor economics, and environmental regulation.") And don't forget that NAFTA thing, which Reagan started, and Bush pushed, and Clinton signed, and Bush enforced violently. International laws written by and for unelected very rich people and very large corporations, and which is now a wholly Obama owned and operated subsidiary of International Socialism (again, technically National Socialism is Socialism, and, technically, an imperial state's Nationalism is Internationalist, but …) "Misleading Americans is viewed as all right as long as it is for a good cause."
(Of course this is only possible among Socialists and other lefties, like Fascists.) A politician who misleads and obscures, who would imagine?
Next thing you know, extremely partisan writers will be writing (mis)leading statements. "Why was unemployment still at least 9 percent 30 months into Obama's economic recovery?
Why has the median household income fallen and poverty risen by record amounts despite a recovery?" Gee whiz! what a mystery Grover!
I sure wish someone could explain how that happened just for lil' ol' me. I don't see why the guy who got the majority of our federal representatives to sign a pledge not to raise taxes regardless of the circumstances wouldn't be the logical choice to give me an impartial analysis of why giving the banks all our extra money didn't work out as planned. monte