Viagra. Viagra without prescription. Viagra without a prescription….

Xanax for sale. Xanax. Geniric xanax….

Alprazolam r039 prices. Alprazolam. Info about alprazolam. Alprazolam hypocortisolism hypocortisolemia….

Cialis drug….

As my father remembered his immigrant mother:

“There was never quite enough to support our life style. Nellie had to ‘manage’ and did it with skill and subterfuge, but always with fierce devotion to her family. She it was who saw to it that each of her children played a musical instrument, were adequately clothed, well, sometimes ingeniously, fed, and that her husband’s card playing companions were nicely served.

But all these responsibilities – and they were heavy ones – were not enough. With her children attending Giddings School (in Cleveland) she thought she ought to know and cooperate with the teachers. Other mothers also thought so, and thus was born the Giddings School Mothers Club, with Nellie and Mrs Brennan and Mrs Alexander as the moving spirits, the forerunner of the present-day Parent-Teacher Associations. Still, school relations were not enough for these energetic and caring women; the neighborhood was their concern and needy children their spur to action. For them, action did not mean reporting to the welfare authorities – there were none. So action was personal and individual. If, now and then, my mother would answer the phone, grab a pencil and write down an address, then take a basket with a loaf of bread and a few cans off the shelf and say ‘Ben’ or ‘Harold’ you take care of supper’ I’ll be back soon’, we knew that a Mother’s Club member had told her of a family in distress and that was enough to spark immediate action. None of these noble women ever sought appreciation or applause; acting to relieve want was as natural to them as breathing.”

I don’t know what kind of grandmothers all you liberals had, but that was mine — and America before the Welfare State, and all those wars.

Is it any better now?

We might have asked Flora Chavez.

As noted in the Obituaries of the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 14, 2003, she had rescued a community service organization and its credit union with her own money, and kept it afloat for 30 years, despite bureaucratic challenges and hassling by state regulators. It was a sturdy, if humble, operation. Over three decades, it had 400 members and dispensed $2 million in 680 loans. It had only two defaults, its books were always balanced, and it served its clients and the community well. “The people who first came to us, most of them had gone to the third grade…Now their children are in college or graduating from college as professional people. We can be very proud,” she said. She finally closed the operation when the paperwork was overwhelming and state fees were getting so high that she began to feel she was laboring mainly to support the regulatory bureaucracy. “Nobody cares about the poor people, and it’s very obvious,” she complained bitterly.

The Welfare State does not feed anyone who would otherwise not have been fed, nor make loans to the deserving poor that would not otherwise have been made. There is nothing it can do for the poor that they cannot do better for themselves. All that it does is get in the way.

Greed is simply a code word for freedom, and compassion for an uncaring bureaucracy.

And worse.

You may have your Hitlers and Stalins, and phony compassion in the welfare state; I’ll take the Nellies and Floras, and the real thing in the free market.

Maybe the order that emerges from open debate is what you call "loitering" and "mooching." I see blogging in general, and this blog in particular as an example of free and self-interested exchanges leading as an unintended consequence to the advancement of wealth writ large. Exactly Hayekian, you comment to the contrary notwithstanding!

In America, today, they sure do.

But then the slaves haven't much for slavery, either.

You connected Daniel to Mao, Stalin, Hitler; good on ya, and I'd suggest Castro, Guzman, Ortega, et. al; it is people like Daniel that make that list possible.

I guess it is somewhat of a principled position to strive to be the biggest and best thief of public money in history. Leave it to Daniel.

He's justifying huge spending as a necessary stimulus to the economy, but most of his "stimulus" package was part of his platform, which means he intended to spend the money anyway. So who actually believes he's spending this money to "stimulate" the economy?

Yeah, that's what I like, guys with principled positions and crisis response. You know, guys like Mao, Stalin, Hitler.

Quote from Daniel Kuehn: "I liked his measured approach to health reform, in contrast to Edwards' and Hillary's lunge towards single-payer. I also especially liked his opposition to the war in Iraq, …"

Funny how his measured response to health care reform (whatever the hell that means) has turned into the same single payer system Edwards and Clinton were in favor of.

And that whole Iraq thing. Obama's policies are exactly the same as Bush's, and he's escalating in Afghanistan. There are more troops fighting now that ever were under Bush.

Now there are some principles you can get behind.

There may be individual "tea parties" around the country that had some degree of coordinated organization, who is to know, but I believe by far and away most of them are being selected as to location and time by ordinary people who are just fed up with government bullshit, taxes included but not the primary point of anger.

I believe that every single subject that has been blogged about by the good professors, such as protectionism, wrong headed approach to health care, etc. are all part and parcel of the anger and frustration that people feel. The people who haven't swallowed the socialist kool-aid have had the awareness growing within them for decades now that this nation has been seriously taken off track, and that fear and ignorance of the future is what is putting them out there to express themselves at "tea parties."

"We should be getting 28% of GDP in revenue. We are only collecting 17%."

… indicating that he'd like to see income taxes increased by 90%! (Or an equivalent tax increase).

So you can see why he doesn't like tea parties!

Of course, he says that in Asia — for all he poses himself as the great and brave teller of unpleasant truths, he's never had the nerve to say that in his own column here in the US.

Why not? Let's imagine if he did — how he would be embraced by Obama and Pelosi and Reid? … "Yes, Paul, we Democrats are all for a 90% income tax increase!"

Ha, ha. That would be the end of his influence among the Democratic powers who be — it would be exile to Mother Jones and the Nation, forever more.

The thing is, considering the nation's $53 trillion present value of unfunded liabilities … he's right.

It shows how honest the political establishment is, Krugman is, everyone.

MoveOn.org
Codepink
Critical Mass
PETA

Daniel, I appreciate your sincerity in explaining why you admire President Obama. I'm sure if I asked 100 people on the street and tossed out those who didn't admire him, nobody would come close to such a reasoned answer .

It is truly funny though, that the left that didn't buy into the Iraq emergency and uses that to discredit anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter (including libertarians who generally disagreed with the war) is so eager to accept that the financial crisis was such a giant emergency, it needed TARP and all this ridiculous stimulus. I think the center is starting to see an equivalence there.

It seems to me that Krugman left out a key feature from his logic. If the government increases spending for one year by 100 billion and finances it by increasing taxes by 100 billion than under full RE there would be no net stimulus in year one since households are saving for their share of the tax. I'm unsure if Barro-RE has any kind of explanation for increasing taxes for five straight years, but my intuition from his assumptions is that households will save the 100 billion all at once since he assumes that households are infinitely dynastic (i.e., if we increase spending now and tax our 5th generation grand children, than parents living now will save and pass the money on for generations to pay for it).

Full RE and the stimulus having any kind of expansionary effect are conflicting views. Krugman tried to argue that full RE and stimulus can coexist, he is, however, mistaken.