• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Open Thread, 8 April 2011

Ken Houghton | April 8, 2011 5:06 pm

Tags: open thread Comments (35) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
35 Comments
  • ilsm says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    “No substitute for victory”.

     

    General Douglas Mac Arthur and his political supporters sought all out war in China.  Mac Arthur and the China Lobby thought the focus of the war on communism should be China, despite the massive power of the Soviet Union and an aggressive Stalin.  They presumed conquering China would defeat world communist conspiracy.  Mac Arthur and the China Lobby saw the Chinese entry into Korea as an excuse to attack China, expand the war, and to reinstate Chiang. 

     

    The General wrote a letter to the House opposition leader, stating that anything less than total victory in Asia was unacceptable, the famous quote, “No substitute for victory”.

     

    Mac Arthur made a number of related statements and exhibited public disregard for the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.

     

    George Marshall testified May 1951 in the Senate for seven days on the Mac Arthur removal.

     

    “the wholly unprecedented position of a local theater commander publicly expressing his displeasure at and his disagreement with the foreign and military policy of the United States.” 

     

    Truman said in the 1960’s and was printed in Dec 1973 about a year after he died:

     

    “I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”[31]

     

    The calculus should have been:  would the cost in lives be justified, would financial costs bankrupt the US, and could the US win a war in China? 

     

    Then to consider what Stalin would do.  […]

  • CoRev says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Two questions:
    1)  How bad was the Democrat political miscalculation in not passing the 2011 budget?

    2)  What Obama policies have been successes?  What measurement are you using to evaluate it/them?

  • cursed says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Sweet the government is furloughing workers. And a good riddance it is.

    The US government has been hyjacked by special interests. The US government is therefore illegitimate. All debts incured by illegitimate goverernment are themselves illegitimate.  

    Nows the time to strangle the federal government, and let the states and local governments sort out the mess.  

    Debt? What debt? The tax payer should just take a walk.

  • cursed says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    MacArthur tried to make policy and diserved to be fired. So should General betrayus.

  • CoRev says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Failure to answer question 2 confirms my own inability to identify Obama policy  successes.

  • ilsm says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    I was talking on the phone to an acquaintance who is still a fed.  I asked him if they made those blue smocks at WalMart big enough for him!!

    Not sure he could keep up at the door.

  • ilsm says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    1)  I do not think there was a democrat “calculation” to start with, they’ve been a right center wing of their opposition.  They continue to fund weapons which do not work, fortunately there is no need for them, except to create dividends for the stockholders who profit from building stuff designed and facilitized by the taxpayer.  
     
    2)  The ones Obama did not compromise on.  Oops, that adds up to ZERO.

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Here’s a link to Eagle Cam. The Bald Eagle is our national symbol and the pair on the live cam have three hatchlings now. Evenin’, y’all. NancyO
    http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Well said. NancyO

  • Rdan says:
    April 8, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    This is a philosophical slant on Medicare…..at least it now has been mentioned out loud…

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/04/paul-ryan-budget.html

  • ilsm says:
    April 8, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    Firing Mac Arthur is pertinent to the current budget crisis.

    The 1995 shut down was Bill Clinton going toe to toe with Newt Gingrich protecting medicare from that iteration of anti New Dealers.

    As I recall I got a day off, I filled out the unemployment forms.  And we went to work the next day.  And received admin leave pay.

    I have never since nor before Gingrich shutdown filled an unemployment form.

    The 1995 shut down, today’s imminent shut down and the supporters of WW III in China in 1951 were all motivated by anti New Deal ideology.

    WW III in China would have starved the New Deal beast.

  • Barrack Rubinspan says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Barrack O’Bama is no FDR. Given the power that FDR never had, with the hope of the people that he would do what the majority wants, he has been what he has always been: An opportunist neophyte playing the con, like street kid.Perhaps we should never have expected more from a minority.

    America has been for sale for a very long time. Why ? Because none of the crap heads passing laws have ever served in the ( drum roll) the military.

    This country is so much more than the POS in Congress.

    The Republicans, who created the debt in the name of the Tories, now campaign to descunstruct the FDR society. Why the JQP goes with it mystifys me.

  • Barrack Rubinspan says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Barrack O’Bama is no FDR. Given the power that FDR never had, with the hope of the people that he would do what the majority wants, he has been what he has always been: An opportunist neophyte playing the con, like street kid.Perhaps we should never have expected more from a minority.

    America has been for sale for a very long time. Why ? Because none of the crap heads passing laws have ever served in the ( drum roll) the military.

    This country is so much more than the POS in Congress.

    The Republicans, who created the debt in the name of the Tories, now campaign to descunstruct the FDR society. Why the JQP goes with it mystifys me.

  • MG says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    ilsm – “The 1995 shut down, today’s imminent shut down and the supporters of WW III in China in 1951 were all motivated by anti New Deal ideology.  WW III in China would have starved the New Deal beast.” 

    How in the world do you make the case that the anti-PRC government positions undertaken by MacArthur and the ROC Lobby were motivated by anti-New Deal ideology? 

    How can you support your claim that a U.S. war on the PRC government in China (not necessarily a full blown world war) would have starved any of the New Deal programs? 

    Are you trying to make the case that those who believe in and support capitalism as an economic operating system supposedly oppose all social support programs?  Why don’t you say so if that is what you believe? 

    How do you relate the presidential firing of General MacArthur to the current budget crisis? 

    The 1995 U.S. Government shutdown involved more than Medicare source funding. 

  • MG says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    There will be no U.S. Government shutdown as of 10:54 PM.   

  • amateur socialist says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:00 am

    Tried?  Betrayus is making policy.  I hope it’s not too late for some future president to call him on it.  It is looking like this one doesn’t have the stones.  

  • Michael Halasy says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:59 am

    What’s on my mind?

    Where did all the other progressive, moderate, Rooseveltian Republicans go?

    Surely I can’t be the only one left…..

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 7:54 am

    1)  Analyze the players.  It was a coalition similar to todays.

    2)  The US would still be propping the Nationalists, and there would continue huge slaughter, famine and pestilence, but there would be Luce family missionaries.

    3)  Capitalism, sought to benefit houselholds, No it does not exist in this world.

    4.)  A president who took a position and stood up to agitprop, and blither.

    5.)  Yes, it involve kill the beast of the New Deal, which Medicare was a LBJ attachment.

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Michael,

    I read David Mc Cullough bio of young Roosevelt.

    A better question than where are the republicans is where is the rational agenda from the republicans.

    Teddy was an eminently well educated man, a thinker and philosopher.  His thoughts are reasoned and more than a little affected by the classical economists.

    There is no such level of reason in the current schemers.

    Example, what happens when the elderly poor use the emergency rooms…………….

  • Lyle says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:22 am

    But Teddy was not a typical republican. In fact he was put into the vice presidency to put him away from power. The very reliable republican William McKinley was assumed to be president for the entire term.  Recall that Teddy opposed the business elite doing what they wanted to which McKinley was all in favor of. McKinley’s operative Hanna was paid off by businessmen and did told McKineley to do what they wanted. McKinley would not have opposed Northern Securities or the merger of the UP and SP, and would not have started the suit to break up Standard Oil. McKinley believed with JP Morgan that the more consolidated the business the better. Competition was regarded as a route to recievership, (indeed it was one of the causes of the panic of 1893 and the railroads competed themselves into the ground). Recall that McKinley’s opponet in 1893 was William Jennings Bryan, and McKinley was (to take Bryan’s point of view) willing to crucify America upon the cross of gold.

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Mr. Michael, you may well be the only Rooseveltian Republican left. I’m not looking at arguments about direct programs versus indirect or general infrastructure projects benefiting commerce as a whole. I think the new R’s reject reason, science, and history. Fine if you want to burn down the house. Not so fine if you decide you want to live in it afterwards. NancyO

  • Norman says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Nancy O, as usual, this old BOUY is a day late & a dollar short, but what a way to awaken on this beautiful bay here, with the sun getting ready to peek over the hills, to find the link you provided of one of Mother Natures best. Thank You, for I have renewed faith in our country on this first day of the rest of my life. Norman

  • amateur socialist says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:02 am

    The real shame of the GOP ought to be how far they have betrayed the vision and humanity of Lincoln.  I rewatched Ken Burns The Civil War recently and was amazed again at how brilliantly he led this country through its first major crisis.  What would Abe say about Newt?  Or Bachmann?  Or Boehner?  The mind reels.  

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    April 9, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Hey, Norm! What bay are you overlooking? The SF bay or where? That reminds me–tomorrow morning on DKos there is a weekly diary called the Dawn Chorus about birds, wildlife, and birdwatching. It’s fascinating and a good way to put things in perspective at the beginning of another week. TaTa NancyO

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    The Big Picture,

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Michael-Ramirez-040511-pie.png

    I had received this during the past week from an acquaintance.

    The $38B reduction is a fraction of the annual increased waste due to ineptitude in the DoD major system acquisitions.

    Crumbs!

  • CoRev says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Wow!  Almost 18 hours and there are NO POSITIVE policy comments?  It does confirm his conservative’s view, that there is little positive to point in his policy quiver.  Help me out here.

  • CoRev says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Amazing to see how much hyperbole issued out of DC for such a minor effect.

  • amateur socialist says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    t occurs to me that high tech weaponry might turn out to be really important once a few more million people get thrown out of work.  The gates around those exclusive communities and enclaves only go so high you know.  So maybe these people are only protecting the real agenda.  

    Now that even the Liberal BO is on board with the insanely counterproductive drone missions over Pakistan and Afghanistan can Detroit be far behind?  

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Reminds me of when I was a civil servant!!

    I did not call it “hyperbole” then……………………..

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Today’s New York Times pg 5:

    Pentagon’s trite news release:  “Stationing three brigade combat teams in Europe beyond 2015 will allow the American military “to maintain a flexible and rapidly deployable ground force” in support of NATO, as well as to “meet a broad range of 21st century challenges,” the Pentagon said Friday in a statement.”

    From what is coming out of NATO’s ineptitude at weakness in Libya, the US is NATO’s only “flexible and rapidly deployable” capacity and the US taxpayer needs to cut them off.

    It is the “common defense” but not for Europe.

    There are “21st century challenges” right here in the US.

    The brigades and their supports would be one of those crumbs congress and Obama were quibbling over the past few months.

  • ilsm says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Having worked in the DoD side of the military industrial complex I do not think the gated communities are the only places need to protect.

    An acquaintance who worked with me managing the contracts used to say: “if the working folks knew how we spent their money, it would be like an old Frankenstein movie, torches and pitch forks”.

  • ilsm says:
    April 10, 2011 at 9:41 am

    The House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has told a veterans’ group it is studying a plan to save $6 billion annually in VA health care costs by canceling enrollment of any veteran who doesn’t have a service-related medical condition and is not poor.

    And some republicans want more money for weapons that are not working.

    If the ordinary citizen knew how the military industrial complex wasted the money……………

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    April 10, 2011 at 10:04 am

    “And is not poor.”  Define poor, Mr. Ryan. How about earns $40K a year. That’s a whole lot of money, ain’t it? Gee, you could make a perfectly good argument that anyone who is still eating and sleeping under his own roof “isn’t poor.” ilsm, I am starting to get a little irritated with this Ryan person. Have you noticed that he looks like Eddie Munster? No? Well, I have and I’m totally creeped out with those glaucous buggy-looking eyes. Yes, it’s true, I am resorting to ad hominem attacks. With apologies, NancyO

  • MG says:
    April 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    ilsm – “The House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has told a veterans’ group it is studying a plan to save $6 billion annually in VA health care costs by canceling enrollment of any veteran who doesn’t have a service-related medical condition and is not poor.”
     
    There is much more to this issue than you’re indicating. 
     
    If you intend to discuss this matter instead of throwing out an article lead soundbite, start with providing the link to the only article that raised this issue. 
     
    Here’s one approach to addressing the rest of the issue:
     
    Current article:
     
    VA Care End Eyed for 1.3 Million Vets
    Tom Philpott | April 07, 2011
    http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,229352,00.html
     
    Background:
     
    Health care reform and veterans
    by Rob Cullen on May 17, 2010
    http://whatifpost.com/health-care-reform-and-veterans.htm
     
    Military update: Obama budget draws cheers, jeers from vets
    By Tom Philpott
    Special to Stars and Stripes
    March 14, 2009
    http://www.stripes.com/news/military-update-obama-budget-draws-cheers-jeers-from-vets-1.89133
     
    Priority Group 8 Enrollment Relaxation Changes (bottom of the page)
    http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/
     
    Changes to the Priority Group 8 Enrollment Restriction
    http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/PG8Relaxation.asp
     
    VA Income Eligibility Thresholds
    http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/VAIncomeThresholds/VAIncomeThresholds.pdf
     
    Department of Veteran Affairs Budget submissions
    http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
     
    Department of Veteran Affairs Budget highlights
    http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2012_Budget_Rollout.pdf

  • MG says:
    April 10, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Nancy Ortiz – “And is not poor.”  Define poor, Mr. Ryan.

    The Department of Veteran Affairs sets the full coverage income thresholds.  

    This issue only concerns priority 7 and 8 veteran categories, non-service related medical issues coverage for veterans.     

Featured Stories

Extending Capital to Nature, Reducing Nature to Capital

Peter Dorman

Trump and the debt ceiling

Eric Kramer

And the King of Coincident Indicators rolls over

NewDealdemocrat

Job Market’s 2.6 Million Missing People

run75441

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives