« My fellow Americans, er... | Main | Miniglean »

10/09/2008

Comments

....More wine for the horses....

Oh no! How is Burgess Meredith "The Penguin" Adelson going to afford to pay his Mossad bodyguards he surrounds himself with when he goes shuffling through his casinos, to sniff the hundred-dollar-now-five-dollar chips accumulating in their greasy little piles.

Wonder if the bitchy little megalomaniac has anything to do with Freedom's Watch's recent diss of Jon Ralston's story on tax reform?

The story links to an NPRI story written by some guy named Patrick who may or may not be related to the walking joke in our governor’s office, who deems the boom-and-bust in Nevada a product of – wait for it – raised taxes.

Um, I thought it was because our economy runs on gaming and development, otherwise known as the Two Realms of Creepy, Lawsuit-Happy Emperor Adelshit.

Nice try on the sleight-of-hand but it’s older and lamer than our Repuglican candidate.

Maybe McCain will try to lynch Obama during their debate next week? Think of the ratings!

No wonder he wants money from John L. Smith!

The case against Pickering

I agree, by not fully pushing free markets, deregulation, and an end to Fed inflationary policies all the free-trade wing of the right did was to make it appear as if capitalism failed even though the Republicans never actually pushed for free trade capitalism.

We have a classic case of mistaken identity.

Republicans pretend to support free trade, limited government and capitalism but really push restricted trade, big government, and capitalism for the rich ONLY and when it inevitably fails a whole bunch of liberal pundits think their enemy, free trade capitalism failed...even though that is never what we got.

Democrats will only give us 4-8 more years of Republican rule, nothing will change.

Even Obama.

He voted for the bailout.

He's just more of the same in a nice looking/sounding package.

Cynicalgirl,

Yes, when you increase revenue 28% in one year , which happens to be the same year as the beginning of our housing bubble, and spend every dime, and continue spending at that level, when the bubble pops so does your revenue. Short of controlling international trade, ramping up inflation, or going to the gold standard, you won't stop the bubble from popping (actually with the first three you will only delay the popping).

So yes, the government's shortfall is a direct result of spending too much money as well as not having savings.

Patrick, one of NPRI's leading lights is this award-winning economist:

http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2008/06/02/news/iq_21750964.txt

To which you might say, so what, he's only one person. To which I say, Charles Keating.

Yes, as an austrian economist he should have known better...and he probably did...that is why he sold his stock early, he knew exactly what was about to happen.

As far as the Savings and Loans scandal, thanks for pointing to another government induced banking crisis. The government allowed the Savings and Loan industry to leverage way too much while restricting their investment portfolios, both encouraged way too much risk, adding on to the fact that there would possibly be a bailout if things went badly...which happened.

At any rate, you have committed a logical fallacy by making this person your counterpoint. Please try again, I know you are smarter than this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Glean the Gleaner



  • Web lasvegasgleaner.com