I was wrong about you conservatives
The conservative tendency to label opponents as “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic” has always gotten me a little … angry, shall we say? I’ll even admit I’ve taken it personally. Who gave them or anyone else the right to define what is American and what is not? And what is unpatriotic about opposing a war that in the long term will weaken our country militarily, economically, politically and morally, as the invasion of Iraq has done?
More recently, though, I’ve come to realize that I owe conservatives an apology of sorts. I had long thought that there was something calculated in their approach, that flinging words such as “unAmerican” at their rivals was a conscious and well-thought-out attack strategy, along the lines of Newt Gingrich’s infamous GOPAC memo. I was wrong about that.
Instead, I’ve come to understand that the attack on loyalty is instinctive, and in that sense sincere and genuine. It’s an inherent attitude that helps to define conservatives as conservative, and to define other people as not conservative. Put bluntly, conservatives put a higher value on unquestioned loyalty to country, party, cause and group than nonconservatives do. That is not meant in this context as a criticism, merely as an observation.
Listen to the debate between the Powell wing and the Limbaugh wing of the GOP, for example, and you hear eerily familiar rhetoric and all-too-familiar modes of attack. Once again, you see the same insistence on loyalty to the group, and the same discomfort with dissent or difference.
Instead of claiming that liberals aren’t real Americans, the conservatives claim that moderates aren’t real Republicans. Moderates are described as traitors to the party and the cause, and they are told, in effect, to love the party or leave it. As RNC Chairman Michael Steele said recently, moderates are welcome in the party, but only if they accept the fact they’ll have no influence.
“Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it,” he said. “You come in because that’s the place you want to be.”
Over at Redstate.com, Erick Erickson offers an interesting variation on the theme, and in fact takes it to a whole ‘nother level. He equates the disloyalty of Republicans who dare to criticize party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to the disloyalty shown by Peter to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Yes, he really does.
“Peter denied Christ three times,” Erickson writes. “Our goal should be to not deny Christ and also to not deny the valuable members of our own movement.”
I acknowledge that’s an extreme example. I acknowledge as well that such attitudes are found among liberals as well, if to a lesser degree. Overall, however, the conservative emphasis on group loyalty and the liberal acceptance of dissent help to define the two camps at least as clearly as their positions on taxes or regulation.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
275 comments Add your comment
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
8:58 pm
NJ, when Churchill took power, Norway had just surrendered, the battle of France would begin in a few hours, it does not seem to be a real rosy situation he inherited. Kinda like the current President don’t you think. Churchill did not blame all his problems on the former Prime Minister though, could be because both were in the same party.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
9:03 pm
Yeah, I’m kinda like Cheney, water boarding and the Islamic loonies.
(-;
It’s funny though, I wouldn’t know Blowberman if I fell over him, I vaguely remember the chubby talking head at SportsCenter, but the peaceful, loving liberals at the bookman blog can recite Rush Limbaugh’s every saying from the last 20 years chapter and verse.
Obsessed meet angry. Angry, obsessed.
jt
May 28th, 2009
9:07 pm
Kamchak-
Yea, Galts speech was a little much. Ditto with the courtroom. You know their making a movie? I don’t see how the movie would be entertaining. Kinda like trying to make Battlefeild Earth a movie.
Anyhow, the seascape would be built along the lines of Galts Gulch.
Today’s technological breakthroughs make this highly feasible.
A good place to start would be abandoned oil rigs in international waters.
I think the United Arab Emirates have already did this.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:07 pm
You know, RW, I used to think that N.J. wasn’t Chadly. But the more I read his stuff (when I’m not just scrolling past it) the more you may be right.
Although Chadly seemed to be a lousy speller compared to N.J.
getalife
May 28th, 2009
9:08 pm
Ah, the victim card.
There were no rules at ml’s until Andy decided to post dkos diaries.
Midori
May 28th, 2009
9:08 pm
RW — grumpy tonite, honey bunny?
or is that distemper flaring up?
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
9:09 pm
getalife, you asked if I believed in rape and torture. I gave you a clear answer. Your response made absolutely no sense. I have kept up. I will take it that you are not able to write clearly and think that others can channel your inner thoughts. Since you are unable to give a clear response, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not think you an arrogant jerk. Have a good evening.
jt
May 28th, 2009
9:09 pm
Washington was the only president that did not blame his predecessor for his troubles.
@@
May 28th, 2009
9:09 pm
Well, I’m done taking the test. Suffice it to say, I’m either very unique or extremely abnormal.
I’m way above average in the Life Satisfaction category.
I’m good…
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:10 pm
OFF TOPIC,
I know we have some baseball fans around here. Does anybody know if the Dodgers Russell Martin always wears J. Martin as the name on his uniform or if not why he is tonight?
His full name is Russell Nathan Coltrane Jeanson Martin so I guess the J is for Jeanson.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:11 pm
Dave R
Good Evening! Mr. G is minding the grill, so I must be brief.
Son, I must certainly do understand the difference. I just think you are wrong. I have not lost any liberties since President Obama’s inauguration. Before that, I’m not so sure.
Nobody really has a problem with your being able to earn what you are capable of. GO FOR IT! Really and truly.
But, and here’s the big but, I believe it is un-American to ever do so at the expense of those around you. I don’t think money should be made by companies or their stockholders, that spill thousands of gallons of crude oil into our oceans and never clean it all up or compensate those who have lost their livelihood or ruined pristine American wilderness.
If you really don’t want government telling you what and where and how you can build – can the Government have the same deal and put Yucca Mountain in your backyard? You cannot go “nimby” now can you?
If you want your “God’s little acre” to be knee deep in grossness – fine. It is when your mess or toll on the public untilities interferes
with the rest of us who prefer not to eat, drink or breathe crap, that Government MUST step in.
Have you had property taken away by “public domain”? All of us have seen that “privilege”, for want of a better word, be abused. Let’s join together and try and stop it.
It seems that in your judgement, a certain socio/economic class
should not be given that which the did not earn. I have no problem with the concept that you get what you earn – a cheater, welfare or wall street, is a cheater. Every income group has cheaters.
Where we differ is that I think in The United State of America, every American should eat, sleep warm, get educated and be kept healthy – even if they are the teeny tiny number of plain old fashioned lazy sacks o’ guano. The alternative is to let folks starve and die in the streets. I was not raised that way.
I think it’s inappropriate to drive big cars, take lavish vacations, tote Coach bags, etc. if you are accepting help from the American government, whether its welfare or TARP/Bailout $$$$.
You say you want to split the country in 2 because you feel you have lost your rights. You might get 1/3 of 4 or 5 states – tops. Man up.
You are always telling me and others here what we think. Please stop that. It’s really silly. The best you can offer is your opinion on how you’d feel if you were any one of us and you have no idea who any of us really are. You might as well bet on the horse races by paintng your wife’s toes. We post what we think and then in the richness and fullness of YOUR experience you go right ahead and tell us what we think.
We pay for and expect certain Government services. It assume you agree and it is simply a matter of where we drawn the line between protection and interference.
There are still ways to live without government if you so wish. Buy a small island and secede, maybe just a 100 acres or so somewhere remote in the states to grow food and raise herbs for medicine, raise livestock, hunt and fish, render animal fat for soap and candles,
tan hides, raise sheep for wool, grow and process flax or cotton for clothing…..make a call by saddling up your horse and giddy-up.
Dave R, there are a number of responses to your lastline, some of them pretty clever, but I’m trying to be nice.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:14 pm
Done annoying you libs for the day. Time to hit the sack.
Pleasant dreams to you Constitutionalists.
Nightmares for you liberals.
getalife
May 28th, 2009
9:15 pm
Those were angry debates at ml’s about Iraq.
This blog is very tame compared to posters like “soda pants”, “sad as hell” and the libs they called the “bathtub crew.”.
Turns out, the left’s rage changed course in Iraq and saved lives.
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
9:17 pm
jt
LOL!!! I’ve read “Battlefield Earth” and just recently saw the movie on cable. No way they could have done it verbatim–though they did capture the spirit of the novel. As for “AS”, a movie has been in the works 20-30 years. I remember reading an interview with Ms. Rand in TV Guide in the late seventies and they asked her about the AS movie. The thing that dated this interview for me was she admitted her favorite TV show is “Charlie’s Angels”–said she liked it because it was pure escapism.
getalife
May 28th, 2009
9:18 pm
No cuz,
I asked you if you think rape and torture is wrong.
You went off on some gun rant.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:20 pm
Sorry, Mrs. G., but you can’t even articulate what you believe in, and find a way to disagree with Hope & Change’s policies that do exactly what you claim you don’t believe in.
Personally, I think it must be hard to live a life without principles that aren’t constantly changing based on what others say or do.
It is certainly not the life I want to live. My principles aren’t for sale to any bidder – Government or otherwise.
‘Night all. Sleep tight under the blanket of security known as the United States Government; free from harm purpose or independent thought.
@@
May 28th, 2009
9:23 pm
Pakistan’s Taliban Declare War on the ISI!!?!!
Regardless of how the Pakistanis deal with the issue of reforming the intelligence service, one thing is clear: The Pakistani Taliban have declared war on the ISI, leaving the directorate no choice but to wash its hands of them. Ultimately, if the Pakistani state wants to escape its jihadist morass, it must be guided out by the same institution that played a key role in creating the mess in the first place.
Don’t know how this one will play out. Should be interesting though.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:24 pm
Dave R.,
Maybe he figured out what it meant when a word he was typing was underlined in red and started fixing them.
Geez Midori, I hand you out a compliment and you lash out at me. You’re a strange bird.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:31 pm
Is the blog on the fritz again?
Midori
May 28th, 2009
9:32 pm
*blows RW a kiss*
that’s the only lash I have, Hon.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:38 pm
Isn’t that a violation of the divorce agreement?
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
9:41 pm
May 27 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy will enter “hyperinflation” approaching the levels in Zimbabwe because the Federal Reserve will be reluctant to raise interest rates, investor Marc Faber said.
Prices may increase at rates “close to” Zimbabwe’s gains, Faber said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Hong Kong. Zimbabwe’s inflation rate reached 231 million percent in July, the last annual rate published by the statistics office.-Bloombaerg
Nice.
Obozo/ Third world.
eewwww
radiowxman
May 28th, 2009
9:46 pm
2007: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
2009: “Shut up, you greedy rich person and pay your taxes. That’s patriotism!”
@@
May 28th, 2009
9:56 pm
Some may not find this interesting, but Stratfor is running a series about Russia’s Oligarchs. The Kremlin’s coffers are empty and they’re looking for cash.
Consequently, barring a rapid return to the credit and commodities environment of a year ago, the vast bulk of the oligarchic empires are in the process of reverting to the state. This means that the only oligarchs who will survive the downturn are those the Kremlin chooses to keep — essentially as employees.
Many oligarchs view this as an ironic twist. Those who cobbled together their empires in the 1990s using the “loans-for-shares” program, in which they took on key enterprises in order to keep the ailing country afloat, are now watching the state take on the debt and management of their companies in order to keep ailing industries afloat.
But the Kremlin is being very selective in choosing which oligarchs to bail out. It is the government’s way of weeding out non-loyalists and consolidating its final control over the country financially, economically, socially and politically.
The Kremlin is considering doing the same sort of consolidation with many of the banks that the oligarchs control. It would keep a few of the banks around — those that are Kremlin-friendly — to ensure that corporate lending would still originate from several sources. Overall, however, the government and not individuals would hold controlling stakes in nearly all the banks. (Most banks in Russia are chartered to lend to certain sectors, which will reinforce the Kremlin’s control over who gets the cash.)
Because of the financial crisis and government consolidation, the once-powerful oligarchs no longer have a say in their future and are merely along for the ride. Indeed, they no longer constitute a powerful and distinct business “class.” Some oligarchs will survive the shakeout, but not with their independence. To some degree, they all will become part of the Kremlin machine so carefully engineered by Putin. As copper oligarch Iskander Makhmudov said in a rare interview: “The oligarchs now have mixed fortunes, but we will all end up being soldiers of Putin one day.”
Is Obama taking his cues from Putin?
The similarities are frightening.
Midori
May 28th, 2009
10:03 pm
Better enjoy it while you can.
I’ve got my lawyer on speed dial.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
10:06 pm
Deep Thought:
I sure am glad @@ reads that Stratfor site so we don’t have to.
@@
May 28th, 2009
10:11 pm
DB:
That’s why I began with Some may not find this interesting but to deny the similarities is to deny the reality of what Obama’s HOPE is all about.
Sleep well comrade.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
10:12 pm
Midori,
All may be fine as I may have misread your statement. When you said…
*blows RW a kiss*
…I thought there was a comma in the middle.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
10:14 pm
DB,
Shouldn’t a deep thought be more than an opaque observation?
@@
May 28th, 2009
10:14 pm
Oh…..and I just heard that this country’s tax revenue plummeted by $134 billion in April.
TnGelding
May 28th, 2009
10:20 pm
@@
May 28th, 2009
10:14 pm
Gosh, wonder why that happened?
the evil rich
May 28th, 2009
10:25 pm
Guess what, I WASN’T WRONG about liberals.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:41 pm
Dave R….
And still all you can do is tell me what you think I think I think.
I’m flattered in a odd way.
BTW, Son, you COULDN’T live my life, you are not appropriately equipped. I couldn’t and cringe at the thought of living yours.
Now, tomorrow should our paths cross, I expect you to tell us what you think. Please share your opinions with us. Open your heart and mind and
give us the world according to Dave R.
Allow us between the covers of Encylopedia DaveR.ica.
TnGelding
May 28th, 2009
10:49 pm
the evil rich
May 28th, 2009
10:25 pm
Buy U.S. bonds!
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
11:03 pm
Mrs. Godzilla @ 10:41
(ooh-ooh, I know-I know, pick me-pick me)
Is it secede now?
clyde
May 28th, 2009
11:21 pm
As a moderate,when I go to a conservative’s house,I don’t try to change it.When conservatives come to my house,they try to get me to join their church.
hryder
May 28th, 2009
11:45 pm
I am a fiscial conservation and open minded to almost all views in other aspects of life. However, when one or a few more people attempt to change the definitions of words or a group of words, I draw the line. Most conservatives do not demand adherence to any one given set of beliefs nor do most liberals tolerate most dissent. What both groups tolerate as members of their groups are people who agree with more than half of their stated positions. Only the extremes of either group exist as defined. Both of the extremes reject dessent directed at any of their positions. Ultraliberals reject rejection of their dissenting positions and ultraconservatives reject dissent of their absolute positions. Stating that this is true of most all liberals and most all conservations is just illogical and intellectual repugnant.
Dr.R
May 29th, 2009
12:07 am
It’s not a recent phenomenon, actually. The hard-core Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were distressed when Theodore Roosevelt didn’t always side with big business and wanted a more balanced approach to fiscal policy. There’s always been a fear of accepting new ideas from a certain portion of the peanut gallery. That’s why the real GOP reformers like Goldwater and Reagan were initially rejected even by many of their own as too radical (face it; conservatives loved Reagan when he won. We love a winner). Those in recent years with unorthodox ideas — Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, John McCain, Colin Powell, Bill Weld, Aw-Nold, even Newt — are looked down upon the righteous as RINOs. Drink the Kool-Aid, go kiss Bob Jones’ ring (and Pat Robertson’s), avoid any dialogue with those “other people” and stay away from zany ideas. Oh, and it helps to be a white guy with corporate cred straight out of central casting from Leave It To Beaver. Hence, your frontrunners for 2012 remain Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford and Mike Huckabee. Same as it ever was.
Mrs. Norris
May 29th, 2009
1:44 am
Your “apology” stinks. Keep it. Got the memo. Conservatives need not apply. I won’t darken your door step any more.
Matt
May 29th, 2009
1:46 am
Thank God I’m not a Neo-Conservative, a Powell Republican or a Rush Republican. If anything, I’m a Zell Miller Democrat, which is accepted by neither party! Why can’t we have politicians who are much more concerned with the actual well-being of our nation rather than the concentration of power? Power is an ethereal thing. It cannot be saved up for future time, it is only something that is here and now. I sincerely hope that the Republican Party can realize that they need to be a party of the people and by the people to survive. Since the election, all they have shown in in-fighting, non-acceptance, and the same old crap they’ve been flinging around for the past eight years. This is not to say that I accept the Democratic Party as my own, or any other party. Thankfully enough, I’m an independent who can actually think and decide rather than blindly following whatever rhetoric is being tossed around. Too bad there aren’t more people who do think before they vote.
N.J.
May 29th, 2009
3:21 am
No, its just as much theft when an employer takes more from an employee than the FULL value of what is created by that employees work.
It is the work and the work alone that creates the added value to the item being made. The capital itself adds nothing to its own original value. Especially when it comes to corporations that do this.
Lincoln, the first Republican president as well as most of the founders`considered monied corporations as the enemy of free republics and free nations:
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
Adams Smith also asserted that the worse thing for any economy was excessive profit and the only thing that an owner could reasonably expect from his ownership of a business was his enough to meet average needs. Anything else was a kind of theft from Smiths “The Wealth of Nations”
“the oppression of the poor must establish the monopoly of the rich”, and that profit is “always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin”.
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent and regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from merchants and manufacturers should always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined with the most suspicious attention.”
“the establishment of a government which afforded to industry the only encouragement which it requires, some tolerable security that it shall enjoy the fruits of its own labour”.
Smith saw an ordinary rate of profit not as what it ideologically is to the ideological, but as what it actually is to the profit- maker, “his revenue, the proper fund of his subsistence”.
“The rich man consumes no more food than his poor neighbour,”
“Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour.
Sorry, those who benefit the most from this nations protections and government through the use of their money are obligated to provide to the rest of that society some measure of what it gains from the protections of the law to those it relies on to create that wealth.
That and that ALONE is the nature of a free and democratic republic.
Anything else is a dictatorship of a landed or monied aristocracy. It is the theft of the labor of others to provide more for oneself at the others expense or as Smith finally put it:
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed
N.J.
May 29th, 2009
3:27 am
Nope the only pratcical method to balance of the upward distribution of wealth that occurs when a business owners does not pay the worker the FULL value of the item that is produce by that employees labor is to tax those at the top, and distribute a portion of it back to those who actually CREATED the wealth. Money, investment, capital, equipment add no value at all to anything. A pile of one hundred one dollar bills sitting on a table does not simply multiply and become 200 dollars on its own. Someone must apply labor for it to increase. One man is entitled to the full measure of his own labor, but not the bulk of the fruits of the labor of someone else. That is the essence of theft. A persons work, no matter who he performs it for, whether as a slave, or as a worker, is what creates the added value that become profit. The business owner creates no more than his own work input into that business. When others work for them, anything less that the bulk of what that labor produces is a type of theft.
N.J.
May 29th, 2009
3:46 am
THe Kremlins coffers are hardly empty. And their nations productivity is still in positive territory. But higher than the average for the United States over the last eight years.
The Russians just offered to pay, the Ukraine, in cash, the next five years worth of transit fees for its use of the gas pipelines through that country. Thats a LOT of rubles:
Russia offers Ukraine 5-year advance payment for gas transit
ASTANA, May 22 (RIA Novosti) – Prime Minister Vladimir Putin proposed on Friday that Russia pay Ukraine five years in advance for natural gas transit, to help Kiev buy gas to fill its underground storage facilities and ensure uninterrupted supplies to Europe.
The announcement came amid fears of a new disruption in Russia’s Europe-bound gas supplies via Ukraine, as the country, suffering a severe recession, needs to buy some 19.5 billion cubic meters at a cost of over $4 billion.
Speaking after talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Yulia Tymoshenko, Putin said: “We propose advance payment for transit of our gas to European consumers.”
He said that supply stability is currently under threat due to “the upcoming elections in Ukraine and the possible reorganization of its gas pipeline network.”
The premiers are in Kazakhstan for a meeting of Commonwealth of Independent States heads of government.
Putin said that disputes concerning transit and supplies of natural gas cannot be resolved until the Ukrainian leadership reaches a common position.
“I am asking the peoples of both countries to take note of this. Under such conditions and with such high risks it is unlikely that we will be able to solve our problems under this setup. We need a consolidated position from the Ukrainian leadership.”
The gas contracts with Russia are one of a range of issues over which Ukraine’s president and prime minister have clashed.
Earlier this week, President Viktor Yushchenko said the contracts signed with Russia at the start of the year are likely to be reviewed in the near future, as Ukraine is unable to meet its obligations under the current terms.
Putin also said that Russia is ready to take part in financing the process of filling Ukraine’s underground gas storage facilities.
“Russia is ready to contribute its share… The size of this share should be determined in the course of negotiations,” he said.
Russian energy giant Gazprom suspended gas deliveries to Ukraine on January 1 over non-payment and the sides’ failure to reach a new gas deal. A week later, Gazprom accused Ukraine of stealing gas intended for EU consumers, and cut off supplies to the European Union via the country, prompting two weeks of gas shortfalls across much of Eastern Europe.
The standoff was resolved after negotiations between premiers Putin and Tymoshenko resulted in the signing of a new gas agreement for 2009-2019 on January 19.
Under the terms of the new gas deal, Ukraine will pay Russia European market prices – set at $450 per 1,000 cu m for the first quarter – with a 20% discount in 2009, while transit fees fixed under a previous agreement remain unchanged. Yushchenko has repeatedly criticized the deal.
*********************************************************************
The economy of the Ukraine is near collape and the Russians want to avoid any sort of distruptions to the natural gas flow to Europe that has been caused in the last several years because of the crises in the Ukraine.
Also they are actively building several new pipelines that simply avoid the Ukraine entirely so they dont have to put up with the political instability that exists in the Ukraine. The projected economic growth for Russia is expected to be about 2.4 percent:
Russia’s GDP growth will be 2.4% in 2009 – minister
21:4017/12/2008
GORKI (Moscow Region), December 17 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s forecast GDP growth for 2009 is 2.4%, while the prediction for industrial output growth has been lowered to 3%, the economic development minister said Wednesday.
Elvira Nabiullina said that the government expected an average ruble exchange rate of 31 or 32 to the U.S. dollar during 2009.
“If the dollar weakens against the euro, the ruble may be more expensive,” the minister said during a meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev.
The minister also said investment will grow by 1.4% and real income by 2.5%.
The figures are based on Russian macroeconomic forecasts for 2009-2010 that assume an average oil price of $50 per barrel.
Nabiullina said natural gas tariffs for domestic consumers in Russia in 2009 would be increased on a quarterly basis.
Tariffs will rise “5% in the first quarter, 7% in the second quarter, 7% in the third quarter, and 6.2% in the fourth quarter,” she said.
The forecasts for 2009 have been revised following changes in expectations for the global economy and oil prices, as well as preliminary results for Russia’s economic development over the past 11 months, she said.
http://en.rian.ru/business/20081217/118913513.html
The Russian government will have to reduce spending, for the first time in a decade and its trade SURPLUS will be lower, but it still has a trade surplus as opposed to a trade deficit, as the United States has.
The U.S. owes for 2008, Russia, 17. 4396 billion dollars and for the first three months of 2009, 2.4937 billion dollars.
Thats just trade balance with the United States alone according to the US Trade Statistics.
Russia is not having that much trouble. Poverty has increased, but poverty in Russia and in the United States are two different things. Russians for example dont have the sort of mortgage and housing obligations Americans have. When communism fell, the goverment simply transfered the ownership of apartments etc to the people who were living in them, so they own them outright. No sharing it with the bank.
N.J.
May 29th, 2009
3:57 am
Not really. The Russians dont seem strapped for cash at all. They just offered the Ukraine a five year advance in cash of the fees for transfering gas through pipelines that cross the Ukraine. There was a 17.5 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.S. in 2008 and for the first three months of 2009 about a 2.5 billion dollar trade surplus.
The GDP is still growing, not by as much as in previous years, but still at 2.4 percent, about 20 percent higher than the U.S. average for the last five years. The government MAY have to cut spending a little, poverty is a bit higher, but since Russian had the apartment they were renting under the Soviets simply transfered to them to own privately without mortgage or rent obligations, poverty does not translate to homelessness as easily as it would in the United States. The 2008 trade surplus with the United States was the highest since the fall of communism. Their total trade surplus with the entire world is expected to be a bit lower than 2008 in 2009, but there is still a surplus.
owlgore
May 29th, 2009
4:37 am
I was right about liberals, they are absolutely the most intolerant, hateful group of people I have ever met. Are you part of the Pelosi wing of the democrat party Jay?
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 29th, 2009
5:47 am
UAW says GM to build small cars in U.S.-Urinal
Duh, you reckon?
Putt putt rubber band pinkomobiles, hahaha.
Jaun Carlos Diego Raul Sanchez
May 29th, 2009
6:17 am
I saw some file footage on the news last night…I swear it looked like Jay was cruising the piedmont park lake for some ‘probing under cover’ research.
Joey
May 29th, 2009
6:17 am
Mike (5:22): I can agree with that.
Jay(5:35):
Writhing that you do not dispise (I used dislike) or disrespect Conservatives does not make it true. My view, you post contrary evidence here regularly. I suggested that your degree of dislike and disrespect has lately risen to the level of hate. Did not mean to imply that it stayed there.
And yes your blog post, whether filled with dislike, disrespect, hate or disagreement, are O.K. with me. They give me an opportunity to respond that is very different and more satisfying than what I could do when you were only in print.
As I recall one or two of those at least annoyed you and maybe did hurt your feelings.
I suggest to you that it was your feeling that were/are hurt. I doubt that you can hurt my feelings. But please feel free to try.
Bruno
May 29th, 2009
6:58 am
What is your point? Weak argument. Poor written column. No wonder AJC is almost extinct…
bobfromCanton
May 29th, 2009
7:06 am
NJ – hmmm that must stand for Nut Job. This NJ has no life and just uses all of cyberspace to rant! Must be a lib.
Dennis K
May 29th, 2009
7:12 am
You say liberals act the same way, just to a lesser degree. Kind of like when Joe Lieberman got his heiny kicked out of the party for not toeing the line. That was a bit insensitive, don’t you think?
ken
May 29th, 2009
7:26 am
Is Nancy your Mother ??
Normal
May 29th, 2009
7:42 am
I’ve been reading all three pages of this and have come to a conclusion.
the first ten-fifteen posts were on subject, then EVERYBODY, started
name calling, finger pointing, and blaming each other for everything that has happened since Christ(a little exageration here, but I’m upset). I occurs to me that if we could spend just half of the energy
that we expend with the “Blame Game”, we could get a hellafalot done
doing this Social Christian, economic solving, world saving work.
Im thinking about starting a company, I think I’ll name it “Designated
Blamee, INC”. I’ll have a corner office and for a “small” fee, I’ll
stand up and take the blame for every thing that goes wrong in the world. I will say, “Yes people, it was my fault, I take ownership,now
get to work fixing it”. By my accepting blame, there is no need to
waste time finger pointing, etc. And maybe, just maybe, things would
get done and problems would be solved. There is no merit for calling
a person who disagrees with you names, it serves no purpose and only
causes more discontent. It is just easier to blame than to fix, that’s
all.
alohagator
May 29th, 2009
8:25 am
It seems that “loyal” democrats have nothing to say on this blog except insults and attacks. If I were to ask about their opinions on US monetary policy, the national debt and or contract law I’ll bet I would get something like, “We need social change.”
Hmmmmmmmm. Again, I would ask you “loyal” democrats, with all due respect…. Is a contract a binding legal document or not? Can someone change the terms of a contract in the middle of the deal? Obama seems to think so.
I wouldn’t normally cut n paste but this one sums it up perfectly —–
Think your way back to the Clintons and their “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,” as they desperately tried to divert attention from Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, tainted blood, the deaths of Ron Brown, Vincent Foster, et al with some semen stains and a cigar. At that time, the Drudge Report was the target, but we all got real news anyway from Sam Smith’s Progressive Review even if the Main Stream Media was happy to bury the truth. The Democrats are back at Foggy Bottom and the old crew is the new crew . . .
Please explain your views like an adult instead of hurling out venom and insults.
alohagator
May 29th, 2009
8:29 am
Way to go Normal….. You’re exactly right!
The Voice
May 29th, 2009
8:31 am
Dave R….you might as well give it up. The folks on this blog are a perfect example of what the Bard said….they are “a tale full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.”
shellybelly
May 29th, 2009
8:43 am
There is no ‘lesser degree’ when it comes to liberals. A liberal will be your “friend” as long as you agree with them. The minute you question them or offer up a different opinion they attack you and call you a hate monger, etc.. Get over yourself Jay … liberals and conservatives are equally defensive of their beliefs to an EQUAL degree. The only difference between the two is that conservatives actually have some logic in their beliefs while liberals rely on their “feelings.”
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
8:47 am
I just yesterday started to chime in here and it seems a lot of y’all have some long-standing, uh, relationships with one another, so I’ll beg indulgence for my newcomer naivete.
That said, this “conservative” “liberal” argument reminds me of what Paracelsus is supposed to have said when informed he had been excommunicated by the Pope AND Luther, “The Pope and Luther discussing theology is like two whores discussing chastity,” Much of what is being said here sounds like it’s coming our of Belle Watling’s parlor on a slow day.
Since when in a free and democratic society do we have to be “boxed in” to a party line of conservative, moderate and liberal? I resent that. Some of my opinions on the issues of the day are to the left of Karl Marx and others to the right of Ghengis Khan. Party line is the antithesis of free thought and is exactly, again MY opinion, what is wrong with the political process as it is today. We elect a party and woebetide the candidate who deviates one iota from its platform.
Of course, though, I’m a traditional Southerner in my world view and as such have no problem with holding opinions others might find “contradictory.”
Whattheheck
May 29th, 2009
8:50 am
As a moderate and former Republican, I have to say what Jay is writing is true. I hated the fact that I was looked down upon by the Republicans in this state if I had anything good to say about any Democrat politician. I was rising up in the ranks in the party, becoming more involved and being placed on more committees, but I had this moral issue burning inside me. I really liked some of the democrats in our state. I thought they were good, honest people that were moderates as well (left of center). But, I felt guilty whenever I said anything good about them because the Republican party here in Georgia would come down on me if I did.
so, I made the leap out of the party. When it gets so bad that we cannot recognize, not just refuse, but are unable, that there are good people on the other side of the aisle, it is time to move on.
In my experience, it all boiled down to money and power, and had little to do with any of us. As i got more involved, I realized that we the people really play no part in the political game. It truly is about lobbyists and special interest groups. this trickle down theory is nonsense. My party leaders for years kept touting it, yet, I worked hard and brought home less.
I am an independent now. I am passively looking for a new party, but in the meantime, I feel better because I can be honest with myself.
josef nix
May 29th, 2009
8:51 am
shellybelly…good point to a degree, especially when it comes to the demonizing, but where does that put those of us who apply logic to our feelings?
Whattheheck
May 29th, 2009
9:01 am
and anything that thinks i have jumped onto the liberal bandwagon, think again. i am the grandson of a mexican immigrant farmworker. he worked his fingers to the bone, providing for my grandmother, my father and his brother. they had nothing but refused any government assistance. AFter all the handouts that have been given out lately, i asked him why. He said that he had too much pride taking someone else’s money and that he alone was responsible for feeding his family.
As I look at what Obama and Pelosi are doing, it sickens me. There are a lot of people desparate out there, and instead of providing the means in which they can lift themselves up, they are feeding them the drug of money, taking away the pride and responsibility my grandfather felt so strongly about. It is disgusting that they are using a moment of desparation to increase the number of people dependent upon the government.
Yes, help them out, but dont do it by making them servants, do it by lending a hand.
Yes, I will never be a democrat as long as Pelosi is running the show instead of Zell Miller.
Normal
May 29th, 2009
9:20 am
Alohagator, They are not listening, are they?
———————————————
Whattheheck, for the sake of a good debate, you said:
“As I look at what Obama and Pelosi are doing, it sickens me. There are a lot of people desparate out there, and instead of providing the means in which they can lift themselves up, they are feeding them the drug of money, taking away the pride and responsibility my grandfather felt so strongly about. It is disgusting that they are using a moment of desparation to increase the number of people dependent upon the government.
Yes, help them out, but dont do it by making them servants, do it by lending a hand.
Yes, I will never be a democrat as long as Pelosi is running the show instead of Zell Miller”.
What do you mean by this? Please clarify. and also, as I remember
it, Zell was a closet Rebublician (not that there is anything wrong
with that). :>)
I will tell you though, I agree
Pelosi, should not be Speaker of the House.
SaveOurRepublic
May 29th, 2009
9:50 am
Mr.Bookman, this article’s title should be “I was wrong about you Republicans”, as the GOP is largely comprised of phoney (neo) “conservatives” & RINO/”Rockefeller” Republicruds these days…who serve the same Globalist Elite ma$ters as does the DNC “leadership”. Many true (paleo) conservatives (as myself) have left the GOP, as it’s the flip-side of the Globalist coin (opposite the DNC). For a party who represents real (paleo) conservatives, look no further than the Constitution Party!
http://www.constitutionparty.com
Whattheheck
May 29th, 2009
10:06 am
Normal,
Would love a good debate.
Basically, if you look at what welfare programs and other entitlement programs do, instead of helping, they keep the status quo, i.e. dependence upon the government. Take the poor, for example. Welfare is but one entitlement they get (yes, I know they arent rich, but they get a lot of freebies the rest of us dont, including tax abatements and refund checks even though a lot of them are exempted from paying taxes). What does just giving money to people do for them? Although I am not an extremely religious man, I believe that a saying in the bible speaks how i feel about this better than any words I can come up with. It is, “give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”
This is what I am saying, instead of just handing out money and calling it a day, feeling good about yourself, while telling the people that got the money that they should be thanking you. Instead, why not give them the tools so they dont HAVE to depend upon you. Poverty is a vicious cycle. People who are born into poverty have almost no chance of getting out of poverty, according to statistics. Why is that? The reason is because they do not know the opportunities that they have to get out of poverty (yes, I understand each situation is different, so save the stereotype arguments for some other place). They have not been taught how to fish. Instead, Jackson and Sharpton direct their anger and dispair at the evil white man. There is a concrete hatred and disdain for others in poverty. Sharpton and Jackson feed that to bring themselves more power and money.
The government on the other hand doesnt want to have to bother with actually teaching these people how to fish. They just want their votes, and the easiest way to do that is to let Sharpton and Jackson do their thing while handing out the drug of money to feed a dependency. It is the easiest way to stay in power and to grow in power.
That is why I do not like Pelosi and her kind. In order for them to be successful, their constituents have to be unsuccessful. If people in poverty were to be taught how to fish, they wont need Pelosi and Obama.
But, there is no one on the Dem side brave enough to challenge the status quo and actually teach these people how to fish. They do not want to rock the boat. As long as the poor people stay poor, the uneducated stay uneducated, and the maligned stay maligned, the Dems have power over them and their vote.
One last thing, I grew up poor and hispanic, so dont bother to tell me that I have no idea what I am talking about. You are wasting your words. My father and mother came home from work and every night we read and went over school work. I am sure they wanted to come home and sleep or go out with their friends, but they knew that the only way that we would have it better was to educate ourselves. they took the time to care and taught me and my sisters how to fish. we never had any money but never took any handout. we never blamed anyone else for our condition and each victory was our victory.
so, even though I would be the stereotype for someone in the democrat party, I will never join.
N.J,
May 29th, 2009
10:48 am
Ah, look what Obama is doing. Today, the Commerce Departments read of the economy in the first quarter of 2009 has indicated that the recession is slowing up, as the net results were less steep than they had expected:
US economy sinks at a 5.7 percent pace in 1Q
US economy contracts at a 5.7 pct pace in 1Q; analysts believe economy doing better now
On Friday May 29, 2009, 9:20 am EDT
Print WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy sank at a 5.7 percent pace in the first quarter as the brute force of the recession carried over into this year. However, many analysts believe activity isn’t shrinking nearly as much now as the downturn flashes signs of letting up.
The Commerce Department’s updated reading on gross domestic product, released Friday, showed the economy’s contraction from January to March was slightly less deep than the 6.1 percent annualized decline first estimated last month.
**************************************************************
And the culprits for the problems in the economy is not government spending or the consumers but in the private sector businesses themselves. While individuals ARE spending the small increases to their paychecks that the Obama tax cuts have placed in them, it is the private business sector that is holding back a recovery.
Weakness in the first quarter mostly reflected massive cuts in spending by businesses on home building, equipment and software and many other things. U.S. exports plunged, so did spending on commercial construction and inventories.
What has swamped increase in consumer spending having a greater effect on stimulating economy is:
**************************************************************
All of those reductions — as well cutbacks in government spending — more than swamped a rebound in consumer spending. However, consumers weren’t nearly as energetic as the government first estimated. They boosted spending at a 1.5 percent pace, according to the revised figures. That was less than the 2.2 percent growth rate estimated a month ago.
***************************************************************
For all of the assertions about Obama’s massive increases in government spending, the reality is that the Obama administration has cutback slightly in overall government spending and as a result this had the effect of slightly eating into the consumer spending. When the Federal government offices in Nebraska purchase office supplies from a local company or cars from a local dealership, it puts exactly the same amount of dollars into that dealers pocket as when a private citizen of a corporation does it. Except that the private sector is being more tight fisted than the government is, and the consumer is being less tight fisted than the government.
As in most recessions, the primary culprit is the private sector. They start having economic problems, their first move is to lay off staff, cut benefits or cut employees hours. For each of these, someone who consumes other businesses products is no longer able to consume, and therefore the business that did the initial lay off eventually loses customers themselves, deepening the spiral of unemployment, lower consumption and deeper economic crisis. Adam Smith pointed this out over and over again. That the best way to keep a free market economy growing is to hire as many people as possible, pay them as high a wage as possible, and to let profit stay as low as possible to do this. This is the only way to keep a constant and sustained growth. Taxation is about the best way to make sure this occurs. By keeping the top marginal tax rates on personal income high, the only way to avoid paying those high rates is to take as little money out of a business in the form of personal income as possible, and use it in ways that create more consumption of what your business offers, as well as more consumption in other sectors of the economy. The economy does not work very well when each company looks out for its own interests alone. It works well when it looks out for all of the businesses that some how relate to people purchasing your own product come from.
When a company lays off people, who then lose their medical benefits for example, doctors offices and hospitals have to do layoffs as well, and this includes some of the more highly paid workers more money to spend on discretionary items and not mere sustance spending. Everytime a company chooses the layoff as its major method of maintaining profitablity, it ends up killing off part of its own customer base.
Normal
May 29th, 2009
11:03 am
Whattheheck,
I hear what you are saying and thank you for telling me you are Hispanic, It makes since to me now. But, it seems to me that what
you are talking about are educational programs, at least, to help the
poor, Maybe health care too, so they can make it in school, and perhaps
food for lunches and such. These all cost money, but they would be
doing something for it right? Would that be OK with you then?
By the way, I am sixtish, white, and a proud member of the working
poor. I ask this because you didn’t clarify what alternative you had
in mind.
Oh, and I am not a Democrat either, I’m Independent.
alohagator
May 29th, 2009
11:18 am
After reading most of the postings this morning I have to admit I’m rather impressed.
It seems most folks here today actually have some interesting things to say. I don’t agree with a lot of what I’ve read however we appear to be on the verge of civilized political discourse.
Thank you goes out to Whattheheck, Normal, N.J. and everyone else who has avoided the nasty comments usually found in this forum…. Except for Jay. His baiting is childish.
We can put forward our different opinions without resorting to name calling, finger pointing and demonizing.
Congrats to the lot of you…. It’s refreshing. Please keep it up.
PS,
To N.J. — You are well spoken and obviously intelligent, but I think you could make your points without so much cut ‘n pasting. Please don’t get upset… I’m merely sharing my opinion. Thank you.
N.J,
May 29th, 2009
11:19 am
Like I said running a government in wartime, is sometimes much easier than running it in peacetime. Britons were used to making sacrifices for the “war effort” which resulted in a government that didnt have to deal much with day to day, bread and butter issues that consume most politicians during peacetime. Churchill was swept into power not because of his skills at running the government in peacetime, but primarily because the previous government could not keep the peace.
As a result in much of eastern Europe, even before the war had started, communist,pro Soviet parties were some of the largest parties in in those regions. One of the last countries created as a result of promise made by the allies during WWI did not finally get created until 1938. It lasted a single day, but in the elections that resulted in its first government, the communists took the largest share of the vote,out of all the various and sundry parties that ran… 25 percent. Of course what is forgotten is that with Hitlers blessing, this nation, the Republic of Carpatho Ukraine, ran up the flag of its first government on one day, and was invaded by Hungary the next.
This still does not change the fact that Churchill was voted out of office immediately after the war had ended. His ideas did not appeal to a peace time population which was frankly sick of sacrifice. FDR’s party, on the other hand, remained in control of the presidency for two terms,one with Truman serving almost all of Roosevelts last term, and a second term on his own.
Churchill did in fact, blame the previous government for the war he inherited. Not that doing anything but declaring war on Hitler first would have changed much, now would it, other than the war starting six months earlier.
And lets face it Churchills own conservative party, like the American Republican party, was ruling at the time that the Great Depression started, running on a conservative economic policy which was not all that dissimilar to Hoovers. When later economists examined Churchills economic policies (he was after all Chancellor of the Exchequer…the Equivalent of the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States) their general opinion was as follows:
************************************************************
Later economists, as well as people at the time, also criticised Churchill’s budget measures. These were seen as assisting the generally prosperous rentier banking and salaried classes (to which Churchill and his associates generally belonged) at the expense of manufacturers and exporters which were known then to be suffering from imports and from competition in traditional export markets, and as paring the Armed Forces too heavily.
**********************************************************************
Churchill peacetime policies which favored the wealthy class in his country at the expense of both the working classes as well as entrpreneurial businessmen in favor of the banking and professional classes, smacks much of both the speculative bubbles that caused both the Great Depression in the United States and the current economic world crisis. Both were caused by a sort of top down mentality, and both were triggered by speculative investment in real estate, rather than the manufacturing and service markets.
N.J,
May 29th, 2009
11:23 am
To put it simply. Churchill was a great wartime leader, much in the way that FDR was. Both inspired a sort of confidence, “never say die” sort of optimism in the face of danger, but FDR favored average person being hit by the Depression favoring a bottom up method of restoring both confidence in the general population and the nation as a whole, while Churchill favored the same sort of top down economic mentality that assert that bankers and other economic professionals know how to better serve the economic needs of a nation than do the average people whose spending drives it. One can be certain that in an economic crisis, those on the top will be cautious and not spend, not on workers, not on new business ventures, not on expanding existing ones, but on contraction in the hope that someone else will not do the same thing.
Kamchak
May 29th, 2009
11:27 am
alhoagator
You might want to check with Judith Martin, but I think calling your host childish could be considered rude. No “gentle reader” for you.
alohagator
May 29th, 2009
11:54 am
Kamchak — Point taken. You are right. I suppose next time I ought to revise my thoughts before I click Submit.
shellybelly
May 29th, 2009
2:43 pm
to josef nix … if one can actually apply logic to feelings then i am impressed
all i ever hear from “liberals” is how they FEEL … not what the BELIEVE. back of those “feelings” with some logic and then i’m listening … other wise, talk to the hand 
Whattheheck
May 29th, 2009
2:49 pm
Kamchak, I respectfully disagree. Calling Jay names is a blast and I know he loves it.
Normal, my solutions would not be based upon social correction (which is fundamentally where a lot of the entitlement programs lie). In other words, social correction is entitled based upon a past wrong (slavery, segregation, etc). Rather, the program has to be based upon economics. There has to be a quid pro quo between the government and the citizen in which the entitlement is based upon a plan to improve one’s self.
For example, welfare. The only way, the ONLY WAY someone is going to get out of poverty and break that vicious cycle is through education. Instead of giving someone welfare just because they have no income and three kids, give people a new program in which they agree to work towards a trade, skill or degree in return for assistance. is it going to be hard, yes, but if they want to, they can get out of poverty (I am living proof, and I know it sucked for my parents).
Kamchak
May 29th, 2009
2:59 pm
Whattheheck
If name calling floats your boat, your handle says it all….
Whattheheck
May 29th, 2009
3:30 pm
Kamchak,
Ha Ha!! We can poke fun at each other, cant we? have we become so PC, so sensitive that we cant do that? calling names to be harsh…bad. Calling names in a friendly way…okay.