Democracy Murdered By Protest
 

"Paul Craig Roberts

Who’s in charge? Certainly not the bought-and-paid-for-moderates that Washington and the EU hoped to install as the new government of Ukraine. The agreement that the Washington and EU supported opposition concluded with President Yanukovich to end the crisis did not last an hour. Even the former boxing champion, Vitaly Klitschko, who was riding high as an opposition leader until a few hours ago has been booed by the rioters and shoved aside. The newly appointed president by what is perhaps an irrelevant parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov, has no support base among those who overthrew the government. As the BBC reports, “like all of the mainstream opposition politicians, Mr. Turchynov is not entirely trusted or respected by the protesters in Kiev’s Independence Square.”

In western Ukraine the only organized and armed force is the ultra-nationalist Right Sector. From the way this group’s leaders speak, they assume that they are in charge. One of the group’s leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, has pledged to fight against “Jews and Russians until I die.” Asserting the Right Sector’s authority over the situation, Muzychko declared that now that the democratically elected government has been overthrown, “there will be order and discipline” or “Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot.”

The bastards are any protesters who dare to protest the Right Sector’s control.

Muzychko declared, “The next president of Ukraine will be from Right Sector.”

Another Right Sector leader, Dmitry Yarosh, declared: “the Right Sector will not lay down its arms.” He declared the deal made between the opposition and the President to be “unacceptable” and demanded the liquidation of President Yanukovich’s political party.

The Right Sector’s roots go back to the Ukrainians who fought for Adolf Hitler against the Soviet Union during World War 2. It was the Right Sector that introduced armed fighters and turned the tide of the protests in Kiev from peaceful protests in favor of joining the EU to violent attacks on police with the view of overthrowing the democratically elected government, which the Right Sector succeeded in doing.

More…"
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014...igue-violence/

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Wiki on Mr. Roberts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

"Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics.[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service."

He sounds a bit controversial. :rolleyes:

"In 1992 Roberts received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism from the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States." Wiki

More from Wikipedia

"I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.[18]
In November 2012 Roberts referred toal Qaeda's role in the attack as "unsubstantiated."

The Right Sector controls the street and has pushed the moderates aside.

Their agenda is anti-Semitic, extreme racism and of course anti Russian.

The Russians have made it known that there will not be a repeat of what took place
the last time. Special emphasis on the Crimea.

If he has anything to do with ALEC then run for the nearest exit.

He was also the co founder of Reaganomics. Isn't that the warm gentle yellow rain drifting down from Wall St.?

He has no affiliation with either the Democratic or Republican party and recognizes that they are both the same. Neither is willing to give up their world wide hegemony quest through every conceivable tool that can be imagined. Obama is just Bush on steroids.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/S...Economics.html
"The term “supply-side economics” is used in two different but related ways. Some use the term to refer to the fact that production (supply) underlies consumption and living standards. In the long run, our income levels reflect our ability to produce goods and services that people value. Higher income levels and living standards cannot be achieved without expansion in output. Virtually all economists accept this proposition and therefore are “supply siders.”
No Roberts contribution was the supply-side economics theories used by the bipartisan congress to implement programs that believed in reduction of "marginal income" taxing.
In other words he believed that if people worked over time to get ahead it should not be discouraged with inflated taxation.

So you're a flat tax rate advocate?

Ah so, then they believe the best way to avoid workers being over taxed is to not pay them very well in the first place?:p

Im torn between flat tax and cash-flow tax. The flat would even things out and turn the tax code into a pamphlet sized code but the consumption tax would be better for the environment by hitting the wasters where it hurts but would also stagnate the economy through people saving more than they normally would with the flat tax scenario. Flat tax on earnings would probably be better in the long run since it wouldn't encourage people not to spend.

That is entirely up to the worker and how valuable he has chosen to make himself. Supply side economics is pretty much the opposite of a so************************t economy where everyone gets the same and it doesn't take long for the producers to figure out that there is no advantage to working harder than the guy who does nothing.

Wow, now that is funny. A political forum where "s o c ia list" is considered a bad word. That's comical.

It's because "ci@lis" is contained in the work "soci@list" and this site had gotten lots of spam from people selling ci@lis, vi@gra and other types of pecker starch. It's therefore filtered. Try to type vi@gra (using the letter "a") and the same thing will happen.

I see..... :D Thanks. Gave me a good chuckle anyway.

That's the cover story. Actually, the site is secretly run by Koch and Co and so any hint of the word is carefully - and believably - removed :p

Pete

Naw, it isn't that nefarious. There are spammers commited to selling those little blue dick starch pills. A spam bot sees the word C-I-A-L-I-S and crossed it out. I guess the spammers never got the memo that PC is a liberal cesspool and as such we have no need for the Republicans favorite drug of choice. :rolleyes:

Want to see something I found amusing the other day Pete?
The evil Koch bros came in 59th of the top contributors list. I always figured they had to be in the top 10.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Dang Pete, all along I figgered you was Donald Trump in drag...:rolleyes:

I wonder where Duhmericans For Prosperity (the tax exempt bundlers for the Chuck and Dave club) rank? Oh, that's right they don't have to name or enumerate their members contributions.:rolleyes:

A blatant abuse of IRS law. IMHO.

Exactly. That's why they (and many others like them) are squealing about a Treasury proposal to reign in tax exemptions for politically active groups hiding under the 501(c)(4) exemption.

Aw thanks Bob but I'm not that cute :eek:

Samm that is interesting. No wonder the unions got the heath care exemption!

Pete

American workers productivity has increased substantially, so where are the big raises?:rolleyes:

An interesting article in the latest TIME abou the new gaggle of for profit political action committees that Citzens United has spawned. Frankly I wonder at the IQ level of anyone who would let some strangers come into his/her district and tell them how to vote. I'm with Tip O'Niell 'All politics is local' so piss off Chuck and Dave and you to Karl.:p

The 'Vulture Economics' graph, that's floating around the web, shows exactly where all the gains have gone. The top .1 %.

No. Capitalism is the opposite of soci@lism, and supply-side economics isn't broadly equal to capitalism. It is but one economic theory of many under the rubric of capitalism. It seems to me that myths as to its efficacy (in floating all boats) has been shattered in the past several decades.

Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income.
Reagans supply side economics brought us out of the stagflation that Carter left us in. During the Carter years, the top marginal tax rate on personal income rose to the insane record level of 70%.

Stagflation was Jimmy Carter's fault? Hmmm, here I thought it was an inherited condition from the Nixonian era.

The top marginal individual income tax rate was not at record levels under Carter. The record was set in the '50's. It was over 90% from 1950-1963.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/histor...ividual-1.html

Reagan stoked the economy by cutting taxes and increasing spending (i.e., stimulus spending, as it were). Somehow, when Obama did the same, it was somehow unconscionable to modern-day Reagan acolytes.

Samm, could you defend the Jimmy Carter stagflation claim...please expand.

Conceded, however the main thrust of the argument that it was unreasonably
high.

I thought tax cuts were the devil? :o

Pete

When the government tries to deal with a stagnate business economy and unemployment with inflation and more government spending by forcing people into spending now thinking they will never see a current price again they produce a continuous increase in interest rates. When interest rates climb they also climb on the interest paid on Treasury bonds (debt)
Can you imagine having to pay a 16% interest rate on the 17 trillion we have now? We would have no money left for anything but interest. One good thing that might come out of it is that we wouldn't be able to continue mettling in every countries business across the globe though. These politicians are like the fat kid in Willy Wanka that wouldn't quit eating the candy till he was forced to.

Google "Carter stagflation" Im sure there are much better explanations for what was happening then the one I have given you.

I think you are confusing "nominal" and "marginal" tax rates.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-...usted-brackets