Reich: Better Blamethrowing Will Fix Economy

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich asks who is to blame for the credit unwind:

A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them.

B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another.

Yes, I know: It's more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand -- the result of the nation's almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top.

There seem to be a few steps missing between concentration of wealth and insufficient demand, but the more important question is how Reich knows what sufficient demand is.

Would $2.4 trillion in additional demand be enough? If you count up all the fiscal bailouts of 2008 and 2009, that is at least how much the taxpayers have spent, every penny of it with just one goal: to take up insufficient demand. There is still insufficient demand for bad mortgages, bad credit card debt, bad auto debt, bad government debt, bad everything debt, and securities backed by bad debt. A non-trivial portion of that money has been spent to hire people directly or pay off contractors who in turn promise to hire people.

It hasn't worked, and Reich's combination of both amorality and naivety here demonstrates why Bill Clinton ended up picking him up by the seat of his pants and the scruff of his neck and tossing him out of the White House. (Note: Clinton did not really do that, but for a look at how relaxed Reich himself was about facts during that long-ago period, read Jonathan Rauch's 1997 review of Reich's memoir Locked in the Cabinet.)

Reich again:

If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story A they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash...

But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A.

Making a big deal out of the deficit -- appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years -- $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase -- is telling story A.

Appointing a deficit commission is the meagerist gesture a president can make toward the iron reality that the deficit is now more than $1 trillion every year. Many Americans, who are not Nobel laureates or former cabinet members or developers or bankers, believe this is a problem.

The straw men Reich shows us are themselves built out of other straw men – abstract Republicans and Democrats who divide a narrative that is then delivered to "the nation."

Reich believes if the Democrats just jump up and down enough, the people will be enlightened. Here's a more earthly possibility: The people have heard enough about Story A and Story B, and to the extent they showed a preference last month it was for Story A.

Reich warns President Obama against repeating the errors of Bill Clinton, who applied some pro-market policies -- the most important of which was briefly retarding the growth of government spending -- following the 1994 Republican congressional win. To the untrained eye of the people, these policies seem to have brought about budget surpluses during the dotcom bubble. Understandably, the people would like to try that winning strategy again.

It might not work this time around, but the presidency is an executive job, not a partisan job. Obama is right to respect the vote. Reich's reality-framing sophistry can't gussy up a tired idea that has now been tested in the economy and at the voting booth, and has failed both times.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • hmm||

    but the more important question is how Reich knows what sufficient demand is.

    The Keynesian Model + some variation there of tells him what the demand should be. I guarantee that is what his answer would be.

  • ||

    Jesus, tap-dancing, Christ. We're back to the insufficient demand theorem? Someone hit the reset button on the marxism clock.

  • Max||

    Let's see if I can explain this to you, twinky. You have a dildo facory and employ five people. There's a downturn in the economy, and people start cutting back on luxuries like dildos. Sales drop dramtically and you're forced to lay off three of you five emoployees. Two of them heavy drinkers but like many other heavy drinkers have had to take up glue sniffing. The liquor store now has to lay off people. See how it works? Tom Cavanaugh might have troble with this not just because he's not very bright, but becuase he writes fro reason which depends more on donations from dimwits like you than on actual demand for this for the drivel they peddle. Have you made your donation?

  • nekoxgirl||

    So your solution is to give money to the dildo factory to re-employee the laid-off workers to make dildos no one is buying?

  • nekoxgirl||

    Sorry re-empoly not re-employee.

  • Max||

    Not at all. I don't have a solution. I simply recognize that our prosperity depends on the demand for dildos being high enough to keep those five emplyees working.

  • KPres||

    "Not at all. I don't have a solution. I simply recognize that our prosperity depends on the demand for dildos being high enough to keep those five emplyees working."

    No shit you don't have a solution, you're a dumbfuck. The solution is to let the price level drop which sparks demand. That's why you have deflation in a recession, the market is correcting itself.

    But then the Fed steps in to pump up the price level, giving you 10 years of unemployment, and all the dumbfuck leftards can't figure out why.

  • Bucky||

    but what about the Dildo Factory? Does that mean that some Libertarian is gonna come in, tear it down, build a electric power plant powered by the unholy atom and somehow annihilate us all by unforeseen policies that they don't want to admit were wrong before it's to late!!!!!
    (sorry that thread on the high speed rail really worked me up into a lather)

  • hmm||

    Ahh yes, people operate solely on the motivation of receiving a check and nothing else.

    I love how the assumptions of the model are always left out. Since they tend to make the theory fall apart.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Beautiful theories tend to fall apart when confronted by ugly realities.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change -- along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery.

    40 lashes for butchering the English language.

    Unless, of course, Mr. Reich is really in favor of insider trading and political bribery.

  • ||

    Unless, of course, Mr. Reich is really in favor of insider trading and political bribery.

    Of course he is. He's a career politician.

    -jcr

  • Libertarian||

    I'd like to see Reich draw a Venn diagram of the two groups behind story A and story B. It might not be concentric circles, but........

  • Mr Whipple||

    He's a "White Shoe Boy".

  • Spur||

    speaking of butchering:

    "There is still insufficient demand was for bad mortgages,"

  • Fannie Mae||

    Poppycock!!

  • Bucky||

    there does seem to be increased demand for unfunded state and federal worker payroll liabilities.
    that should count for somthin'.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Fixed. Thank you.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Once again Hollywood has set us up for the big fall. All of the cool visions of alien invasion/asteroid/nuclear/zombie apocalypses and the LAMoEs who battle them, and what do we actually get?

    This is the way the world ends
    this is the way the world ends
    this is the way the world ends

    With brainless corpses lurching through the streets groaning about boosting aggregate demand and the US government unable to borrow a nickel to buy a bullet to shoot them with.

  • prolefeed||

    So Robert Reich is either an economic ignoramus, or a lying sack of shit statist who is telling what he knows are lies because he wants to have a really huge government.

    Good to know.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think it's an either/or proposition.

  • Corduroy||

    I would like to hear the number of economic forecasts that Reich has made which actually came to pass.

  • ||

    He like, most economists, has an awful track record.

    I don't need to even look at any specific forecasts he has made to know this. If he was good at predicting such unknowable events like "the economic future" he would easily be the richest person whoever lived. Such an ability would be truly impressive and the monetary gains would be boundless.

  • Spartacus||

    Actually, he's both. We knew that 15 years ago.

  • prolefeed||

    Unless, of course, Mr. Reich is really in favor of insider trading and political bribery.

    Unless he is one of those rare people who think politicians should voluntarily turn down large campaign contributions because those would inevitably affect their decision making, then yes, he is in favor of political bribery.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Reich warns President Obama against repeating the errors of Bill Clinton, who applied some pro-market policies -- the most important of which was briefly retarding the growth of government spending -- following the 1994 Republican congressional win.

    Heaven forbid he rule during the longest peacetime economic expansion in our country's history.

  • prolefeed||

    Threadwinner!

  • ||

    Bush I and Clinton also raised taxes right before the 90s boom. Does that mean that tax increases lead to prosperity?

    The 90s boom was bound to happen regardless of what the govt did. You had the end of the Cold War, the opening of markets in Eastern Europe and China, the birth of the Internet as we know it...it was a unique confluence of positive events. Reseting federal policy to what it was in 1995 is not going to bring that back, however much we might like that to happen.

  • ||

    Bullshit. The government could have killed the boom in the craddle if it had wanted to. Imagine if Hillarycare and Clinton's energy tax had passed? Also, the boom didn't happen until after 1995 when they dropped the capital gains tax. Go back in look at the economy in 1995, it wasn't that great.

    You are right, the government had nothing to do with making the boom happen. But it sure as hell could have killed it had people like Reich gotten their way.

  • Mr Whipple||

    The Austrians tell us, booms are always followed by busts. That is, when the boom is the result of too much cheap, easy money being flooded into the system. The 90s boom was the same as the 2000s boom; artificially manipulated interest rates, by the man with the God-complex. You know his name.

  • ||

    Booms happen on their own. That is where the Austrians are wrong. It is the nature of capitalism and mass phsycology that sometimes things get over priced and the rising prices become a self fullfilling profecy.

    No amount of sound monetary policy will prevent that. The U.S had horrific booms and busts back before World War I when the world really did live by a gold standard. The explosion of technology in the 1990s would have produced a boom and corresponding bust no matter what. It wasn't Allen Greenspan who convinced people that pets.com and other companies with no cash flow were somehow worth billions. It was the mass psychology of the market. It is just how markets work. But the good news is that the bust is never as bad as the boom was good and after the bust happens and all the bullshit is purged from the system, the real inovations and increases in productivity produce real increases and wealth leaving us better off than we were before.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Yes, but without external interference, those booms are short lived, and mild in comparison.

    The Panics, that I assume you are referring to, were the result of the National Bank Act (1864,1865), and the end of free banking, which enticed banks to purchase Treasuries, and placed a 10% tax on bank notes, and the big one, 1907, was the result of Knickerbocker trying to corner the market on copper. Sort of like what JP Morgan is doing right now.

    Alan Greenspan flooded the market with cheap, easy money, which facilitated Ponzi, or speculative borrowing. Most of that money went into the dot coms. In other words, it added fuel to the fire. The same thing happened with the mortgage boom. Even the Post-Keynesians agree on that.

    But it doesn't really increase wealth. It may increase the paper value of stocks and real estate, but a country is only as wealthy as what it produces. Eventually, all we are left with is devalued capital, and inflation. And real wages never keep pace with real inflation. Palyi showed that fairly accurately in 1961. Perpetual monetary inflation results in a redistribution of wealth from the poor and Middle Class to the wealthy.

    All of the attempts to inject stability into the market, by the Fed and Treasury are doomed to fail. The markets are inherently unstable. Manipulation results in front-running of the Fed, and sends false market signals.

  • ||

    It makes the booms and busts longer. Not sure it makes them anymore severe. The busts of 1837, 1873, and 1893 were incredibly severe. They were every bit as severe as the one in 1932. But amazingly, the economy recovered in just a couple of years with the help of the New Deal.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Why wouldn't it make them more severe? The more money in the market, the higher the value of the paper.

    I take it, you are being sarcastic about the New Deal?

    I agree that the malinvestments need to be flushed out. But that's not what's happening at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. They are trying to hide them with accounting tricks and dollar devaluation, and, of course, direct purchases, and temporary liquidity programs. If it were up to me, I'd force the zombies to divest, or be liquidated in receivership. Fuck it. They are insolvent.

  • ||

    I was being sarcastic about the New Deal. As far as the busts being more severe, I am not sure why but the busts of the 19th Century were much more severe than those of the 20th Century. The depression of 1873 makes the one in 1932 look like a walk in the park.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    I learned all my history from Hollywood, but could it be that there was no Federal Reserve in those days, so Uncle Sugar lacked the ability to monetize the misery?

    Taxes people have been living with for thousands of years. It's the spending that keeps the misery alive.

    Consider the intervention into the real estate market -- which like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is still going full-throttle with no exit plan. It has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It has also cost bad borrowers a terrible loss in time, money and honor -- just so they can hang onto a debt that they'll never be able to repay. It even costs banks, who have to close a bunch of refis only to see many or most of them redefault a year later.

    Never forget the miracle of government spending: It makes everybody poorer.

    So just to keep the conversation going, I'll say the difference in recoveries is not in tax policy. It's in spending policy. The more the government spends the longer the sorrow lasts.

  • nekoxgirl||

    By worse, do you mean deflation? It would make sense that deflation was worse in prior depressions, since during the Great Depression, the government actively tried to prevent prices from falling. Deflation actually helps the economy recover faster, which is why the Great Depression lasted through the 1930's and led to WWII.

  • ||

    The Recession of 1873 was a direct result of the economic nationalism of the fiat money era resulting from civil war monetary manipulation.

  • JoshINHB||

    But the good news is that the bust is never as bad as the boom was good

    Except for this bust which has wiped out all the gains of the 00s.

    ...and after the bust happens and all the bullshit is purged from the system, the real inovations and increases in productivity produce real increases and wealth leaving us better off than we were before.

    Assuming that the boom was driven by something more than a credit bubble.

    The OOs boom was entirely debt financed consumption.

    What innovations do you think were created in the 00s that will drive future growth?
    CDSs?
    HELOCs?
    McMansions?
    Platinum public employee pensions?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Other than platinum public employee pensions, I don't see why anything on that list can't contribute to future growth. Junk bonds, derivatives and other putative villains in previous bubbles continue to serve a purpose in the marketplace. And plenty of items of real value -- Facebook, smartphones, consumer GPS applications, Miranda Cosgrove, networked gaming, to name a few -- have not been wiped out by the bust.

  • JoshINHB||

    Other than platinum public employee pensions, I don't see why anything on that list can't contribute to future growth.

    Because none of them is productive, in the sense of creating more goods and services.

    Junk bonds, derivatives and other putative villains in previous bubbles continue to serve a purpose in the marketplace.

    of creating new credit bubbles.
    Again, not productive investment.

    And plenty of items of real value -- Facebook, smartphones, consumer GPS applications, Miranda Cosgrove, networked gaming, to name a few -- have not been wiped out by the bust.

    Never said that technological innovation stopped.
    I was responding to John's point that boom era innovations that increase productivity will lead to even more productivity. Widespread GPS can lead to more productivity, online gaming not so much.

    Then again with enough funny money from the Bernank maybe we can all be employed playing games online, cyberstalking celebrities or posting on facebook. That is until the rest of the world stops accepting monopoly money for tangible goods.

  • numeromancer||

    The Austrians tell us, booms are always followed by busts.

    And the weather-people tell us that the cold-weather peak is always followed by weather which is warmer. Brillant!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Pro-market policies" = "errors".

    BTW: Is this the same fucktard who wants a maximum wage, or was that one of Clinton's other cronies?

  • Ted||

    My guess is that he would argue "sufficient" demand is the level of total nominal spending (private + public) and investment capable of generating the structurally minimum level of sustainable unemployment (5%-ish, I guess).

    In terms of income inequality, is this like some bizarre Marxian under-consumption theory he is peddling? (Not even very, very old school Keynesians believed such unsophisticated theories).

    On the deficit, we don't know enough about it to know when it is going to be a problem. I suppose you could point to Japan in that we shouldn't care since they are running close to 200% debt/gdp and their debts have been downgraded, yet they are still not facing a fiscal crisis - but I wouldn't chance it on that example. We should deal with it before we are in Japan fuzzy territory of "are the bond vigilantes coming yet??".

    Also, isn't Mr. Reich forgetting controlling long-term deficits via austerity is actually expansionary, if the commitment is credible? The theory is quite simple. The majority of the U.S. population approximate permanent income consumers (I believe it's close to about 66%). If we outlined and pass a credible, long-term budget plan, rational consumers, in anticipation of a lower expected future tax liability, will increase their estimates of their permanent income. This will increase both future and CURRENT consumption.

    In other words, long-term austerity that deals with the structural deficit will actually create "demand" now - just like Reich wants.

    By the way, I'm going to use an error in this blog post to make a point about why AD is really a meaningless concept in practice. Technically, the fiscal stimulus did increase aggregate demand. A component of AD is government spending and since interest rates didn't rise to generate a "crowding out" effect, it likely increased AD. However, it's hard to see why we should care about this or whether this is even an improvement from a welfare perspective. What we should want is increased in private nominal spending and investment. Who cares what AD actually is - we care what spending and investment is going on. Let's be specific about the language and just dispense of the generic term "aggregate demand"

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    My guess is that he would argue "sufficient" demand is the level of total nominal spending (private + public) and investment capable of generating the structurally minimum level of sustainable unemployment (5%-ish, I guess).

    Combination of public and private spending is too easy to game with stimulus spending, where the dollar spent is presumed to return 100 percent value or more.

    Why not go with Fed Flow of Funds data? Would Reichians be happy if we took the total household net worth at the most recent peak, and said the federal government needs to spend dollar-for-dollar back to that peak? That way the interventionists could give a nice solid number:

    $5.1 trillion.

    That's the difference between household net worth this year -- $53.5 trillion -- and household net worth at the peak of the Bush bubble -- $58.6 trillion.

    People who read Pauly Krugnuts, has he ever put a solid number on what he thinks adequate spending would be?

    Maybe we're all Reichians now. I hope not. Reichians sound like the villains in counterhistorical fanfic.

  • IceTrey||

    Clinton didn't retard spending. The Republican Congress did. I'm not sure but I think the Repubs had enough votes to override his veto so he just went ahead and signed.

    As for Reich, even the most economic ignorant knows the way to a booming economy is low taxes and low regulation.

  • JohnD||

    And all of the Democratic posturing about Bush and the economy was a result of the last 2 years of the Bush presidency being accompanied by a Democratic congress.

    Bush's failure was in NOT VETOING more bills from congress

  • Libertarian||

    Any day that Reich is not dragged through the muck and mud of his own words on H&R is a day wasted.

  • C-Dog||

    What exactly makes lefty shit bags like Reich, Krugman, and Friedman so repulsive? Is it the ignorance of over 100 years of economics? The outright lying? At least the red team has Thomas Sowell, you think you could expect one tolerable pop-econ guy on the left.

  • Attorney||

    It's the lying. Plus the platforms the lib media give them.

  • Mr. Mistoffelees||

    "a tired idea that has now been tested in the economy and at the voting booth, and has failed both times."

    That's a much better track record than libertarianism has at the voting booth.

  • ||

    But not as good as libertarianism has in the economy.

  • Mr Mistoffelees||

    Compare the economy on 1/19/01 with the economy on 1/19/09. Does anything jump right out at you? Be honest.

  • ||

    Compare the economy of 01/01/80 to 01/01/90 when there was an actual easing of taxes and government regulation that occured in the time period, does anything jump out at you? Be honest.

    As far as the 00s, maybe I missed it, but I wasn't aware there was any sort of easing of regulation or government intervention in the economy during that time. I know liberals are not big on book learning, but the books I read tell me that the 00s saw increasing government intervention in the economy via things like SARBOX, politicized fed monitary policy, and the ever increasing reach of FANNIE and FREDDIE.
    Whatever the 00s were, they were sure as hell not an experiment in libertarianism or even a turn towards such like the 1980s were.

  • db||

    What do think that statement is supposed to teach us about libertarianism? That it might have been an acceptable alternative to what actually happened during those years?

  • ||

    Compare the economy on 1/19/01 with the economy on 1/19/09. Does anything jump right out at you? Be honest.

    two towers down and two wars?

    Or are you seriously saying that Bush's tax cuts is the cause of our shitty economy?

  • nekoxgirl||

    I've talked to many liberals that will argue that Bush tax cuts did cause the recession. If you believe in the theory that wealth inequality is the cause of the depression than it makes perfect sense I guess. Rich people had more money because of Bush's tax cuts and so there was less money for everyone else. They some how miss the part about rich people investing money, thereby creating jobs.

  • Bucky||

    exactly! why on earth would the evil rich people allow those pretty green bills out from under their mattresses only to be spoiled by the grubby mits of the great unwashed? the horror of it all!

  • John||

    Instead of trying to undo the damage he has done over the last two years Obama is working on something really important, stopping school bake sales.

    http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefaul.....bd842f85c2

    I guess now liberals won't be able to say "if only the Pentegon had to have bake sales to buy bombs" anymore. Bakesales are evil. Bombs in contrast, are okay as long as a Democrat is dropping them.

  • ||

    The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that.

    Vilsack also said he didn't intend to cum inside us and does intend to respect us in the morning.

  • Corduroy||

    I can't wait for the Taylor System to be implemented in our new United State.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I saw that in my local paper yesterday. The Judge pointed out the other day, that there's a trend in lawmaking, where the laws are intentionally vague, and broad, thus giving the bureaucratic regulators the ability to make the actual rules. Funny, I thought that the Legislative wrote the laws, the Executive enforced the laws, and the Judicial interpreted the laws. I guess that whole "separation of powers" thing is antiquated.

  • Bucky||

    well Gorbachev just wanted the Soviets to think in new ways. Michelle just wants us to eat in new ways.

  • nekoxgirl||

    That reminds me of a law that almost passed at the state level in NC. It involved prosecuting daycare workers if they gave children too much whole milk or juice.

  • JoshINHB||

    The real irony is that progressives think school cafeteria fare is more nutritious than home made food.

  • ||

    In other news, Glenn Greenwald is a twisted little fuck.

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....al-sexism/

  • Mr Whipple||

    But Ames and Levine, at exile'd, told me he is a Koch-funded libertarian.

  • Mr Whipple||

    DRINK!!!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm drinking conceptually today, as I have to go to work here in a bit.

    Oddly enough, I work in a liquor store. The irony is so thick, I can cut it with a cliche.

  • ||

    That's hardly odd FIFY. Only a child would think you could sell booze drunk. Adults should understand that trying such a retail scheme would result in lots of free drinks.

  • Bucky||

    i had grand dad who did just that in the great state of PA. five years after his death we were still finding his "stashes". under the birdbath in the yard, under the spare tire in the VW (which also had a windshield washer that was disconnected and filled with booze)

  • ||

    That is funny. He is just a strange little shit. Reason has a hard on for him because he has written a lot of stuff about torture and he is very anti-Israel. Why a "libertarian" publication particularly cares about Isreal, I have yet to figure out. And as the link points out, he only seems to be concerned about torture when it involves men. Torture of women and the real abuses that go on in the pornography and prostitution industries don't seem to affect him.

    I think porn and hookers ought to be legal. But thinking that shouldn't mean that you deny that some real nasty shit goes on in those industries. In fact, the nasty shit is mostly the result of it being illegal or quasi legal and underground. Greenwald doesn't seem to understand that. And his defense of Spitzer is just pathetic. How anyone who claims to think prositution is okay could not love watching Spitzer, a guy who made his reputation in part for going after prostitutes and Johns, is beyond me.

    Ultimately, Greenwald just has a lot of issues. Like some gay men and men in general, those issues seem to relate to women.

  • ||

    There's nothing unlibertarian about being concerned about oppression by a foreign state of people in [their own territory | another country | whichever status Israel assigns to the West Bank and Gaza to suit their purposes today].

  • ||

    Nothing libertarian about obsessing over the one liberal democracy in the area surrounding buy horrible authoritarian regimes. How often do you see Reason be concerned about the opporession that goes on Syria or Egypt? Rarely if ever.

    It is always fashionable to hate the Jews. And Reason does love fashion.

  • ||

    Criticism of Israel == anti-semitism?

    How creative. You been chumming with Underzog?

  • ||

    There aren't powerful people in the media and the govt pushing the line that Syria and Egypt are wonderful democracies that deserve our financial and military support.

    And Israel is not, of course, a democracy.

  • ||

    To clarify, if the West Bank is not Israeli territory, then it is an aggressor against neighboring states.

    If the West Bank is Israeli territory, then it is not a democracy.

    Which one do you want?

  • Cytotoxic||

    And Israel is not, of course, a democracy.

    Another one to be filed under "because Tulpa says so."

  • ||

    Uh John, doesn't the fact that Israel is a liberal democracy demand MORE attention than the expected injustices of authoritarian states?

    Israel could easily pull out of the settlements if not for a powerful religious minority that has the government's ear. Israel can be changed by diplomacy, and I think will be changed by diplomacy, but the countries surrounding it never will.

    And I'm not an antisemite, and I've actually been to Israel and seen how much exaggeration there is about "apartheid," but there is no reason Israel should keep these settlements outside its border. They only hurt Israel globally.

  • RyanXXX||

    And John, Reason almost never blogs or writes about Israel, so you're once again talking out your ass.

    Greenwald is a gem because of his honest and intellectually courageous writing on civil liberties and the warfare state. He is different than 90% of the other bloggers out there in that he calls out both sides

  • Cytotoxic||

    WHAT OPPRESSION?! The people of the WB have more rights under Israel than they would under any neighbor of Israel or their own state. Further, Israel was aggressed upon in 1967. They captured that territory fair and square. If they think that occupying it is necessary to defend their country, then they have a moral obligation to defend it.

    Israel has always been the victim.

  • ||

    They've occupied that territory for almost 40 years. If they think it's necessary to keep control over that territory they need to make the people who live there Israeli citizens and include them in national politics.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I should have added this: All free, democratic nations like Israel have the right to occupy, annex, or conduct regime change upon other nations that are unfree, so long as there is greater freedom in the liberated area. So Israel has every right to occupy the WB and build settlements forever. Whether is should is another question. The Palestinians can have their state when they have proven themselves responsible and civilized enough to have it. Besides, they already have a nation in the West Bank it's called Jordan.

  • ||

    Better zip up, your neocon is showing. Just, wow.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Better shut up, because you're ignorant of what a neocon is. I'm an Objectivist, and you can see some evisceration of Neoconservatism over at the ARI as you should-free sample: http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa.....ls_neocons

    Consider educating yourself and then making arguments. Either way, I accept my victory with magnanimity.

  • sr7||

    For those of us unenlightened in Objectivist thought, could you point to an international treaty, national constitution or any recognized transnational organization that Isreal has signed on to that recognizes All free, democratic nations like Israel have the right to occupy, annex, or conduct regime change upon other nations that are unfree, so long as there is greater freedom in the liberated area. So Israel has every right to occupy the WB and build settlements forever as a principle? Or, is this something that Rand, or maybe you pooped out?

  • Old Man with Candy||

    Sucks to start a war, then lose.

  • Mr Whipple||

    He did an in-depth report on drug decriminalization in Portugal, for Cato.

    Greenwald gets hammered by both sides. So, in my opinion, he must be doing something right.

  • bobchild||

    Apparently I'm an idiot but... can someone explain to me what Reich's income inequality thesis even is?

    Even if I accept every Keynes every statement as truth, I can't come up with a reason why income inequality could cause AD to be "insufficient."

    It's been a really long time since I've read Keynes, but the closest I can remember him coming to that was that you should target fiscal stuff at low income people 'cause they'll spend it all. Don't remember anything like this.

    Obviously no one here agrees with this statement from the comments above this one but... can someone explain to me what he's even arguing?

  • bobchild||

    And I fail at posting things at the bottom of the thread.

    Evidence is building for me being a spectacular idiot.

  • ||

    At least you didn't get pwned by your own joke-handle.

  • ||

    Greenwald gets hammered by both sides.

    You know who else got hammered by both sides....

    Anyway kidding aside this is the worse argument ever. In most cases people get attacked from all sides because they are wrong.

  • RyanXXX||

    John does this with the guys who wrote the Israeli Lobby book also - he reads the absolute worst opinions of them available, bordering on slander, and then parrots those opinions as absolute fact, without actually reading the original source material

  • meh||

    Anyway kidding aside this is the worse argument ever. In most cases people get attacked from all sides because they are wrong.

    No, I think THAT might be the worst argument ever.

  • ||

    So finding a person getting hammered by both sides and your first instinct is trust that persons ideas?

    You are an idiot.

  • RyanXXX||

    John that has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

    Judging by most of your comments, Greenwald is much more qualified to carry the "libertarian" banner than you are, so you try to paint him as some sex-pervert.

    Actually, the article you posted to shows that he has libertarian views on sex - porn shouldn't be illegal, prostitution shouldn't be illegal, etc.

    It's clear you've never actually read him.

  • G-rated||

    Ryan, you are obviously retarded and haven't read Dhimmi Sockpuppet's Nazi rants. Do yourself and everyone else here a favor, and die.

  • Cytotoxic||

    RTFA

  • RyanXXX||

    I read the thing. She chops off his quotes to make them sound heinous, when he wasn't actually declaring guilt or innocence. He was pointing out the dangers of automatically assuming she was telling the truth, and the man was lying. That's all. You think women have never falsely accused a man of rape to save their own reputations?

    This is about how offended John is that Greenwald doesn't like Israeli policies or America's empire, so he brings in shitty articles from nowhere websites to paint Greenwald as a perv

  • Mike M.||

    I knew there was something seriously wrong with this guy Greenwald when I saw what he was writing about the post 9/11 anthrax letters back in the day. It was just some of the most bizarre, ultra paranoid shit I've ever read in my life. He's mentally disturbed.

  • RyanXXX||

    You mean how the FBI totally botched the case and lied to cover their own ass, resulting in the suicide of a guy who was probably innocent?

  • Mike M.||

    Oh please buddy. Try reading the actual evidence. The guy was as guilty as sin, and killed himself instead of facing the music like the cowardly piece of garbage that he was.

  • ||

    John that polemic is ridiculous. It's just some idiot feminist extrapolating that because Greenwald thinks prostitution and pornography are ok, he supports torture, child pornography, and rape. Are you that stupid?

  • ||

    RFTA or shut up. Or at least read my post above. It is not about porn or hookers being okay. It is about Greenwald's inability to ever believe a woman no matter what and his immediate horror over male torture. That is what makes him a wierd little shit.

    And his defending of Spitzer proves he is just a hack.

  • RyanXXX||

    Stop assuming people who call your bullshit didn't read the article.

    It's all extrapolating and searching for strange "patterns" where there aren't any. And if you think buying a prostitute is analogous to what goes on at Guantanamo and at the CIA black sights, you need to have your head examined

  • Cytotoxic||

    And if you think buying a prostitute is analogous to what goes on at Guantanamo and at the CIA black sights, you need to have your head examined

    Now what the hell are you talking about?

    In any event, the defense of Spitzer is enough to morally indict Glenn.

  • Cytotoxic||

    (and the threat he posed to oligarchs)

    Greenwald actually said this about Spitzer. This quote must never die. It is the hardest proof you could ever want that Greenwald is a fucking idiot.

  • rhea||

    When everything else has fail and turned gray, OBAMA MUST NOT BE BLAMED! Blame it on everyone and everything else but not him. Such a good role model...
    http://www.pathtoasia.com

  • JohnD||

    uh.... too late for that.

  • C'mon man||

    Option B doesn't seem possible without Option A.

    We need more private/public partnerships like Fannie and Freddie. How exactly does the great credit crisis come about without these two delightful partnerships?

  • ||

    Or the better question is how does it happen without the fed holding interest rates artificially low.

    It still would have happened. Sometimes markets get out of whack. Booms and busts do happen on their own. But, option A certainly made it worse that it would have otherwise been.

  • Corduroy||

    These morons have never made an accurate economic prediction. The Austrians continue to be the most accurate forecasters, and the most ignored.

  • Mr Whipple||

    How exactly does the great credit crisis come about without these two delightful partnerships?

    Ask Dick Fuld from Lehman. One could argue that it was the securitization of mortgages, or "pass-throughs" by Freddie in 1981 that set the stage. But Lehman, was by far, the largest purveyor of liars loans for most of the decade. Plus, there's the accounting tricks with the repos.

  • ||

    http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/.....ident.html

    You know, if I were a double ambutee and didn't have that much to live for or that great of a quality of life, I think I would stalk those motherfuckers to. And if I were a judge and they came whinning to me about this, I would get around to dealing with the issue some day when ever other case on my docket had been ajudicated.

  • JoshINHB||

    It's amazing that no grieving relative has offed those evil fucks.

  • Cytotoxic||

    In all seriousness, I see that as a sign of the strength and tolerance of the American people.

  • ||

    Does that mean that tax increases lead to prosperity?

    According to Team Tony, YES.

    That top-hatted libertarian maniac JFK put this country on the road to ruin when he lowered rates.

  • ||

    Don't forget Bill Clinton in that rogues gallary. Bill Clinton sold out after 1994 and worked with the Republicans to cut the growth of government and taxes. And look at the misery that ensued.

  • Mr Whipple||

    If I'm not mistaken, they actually paid down part of the principle on the debt, which hadn't been done since Truman.

    But then again, in a Keynesian scheme, principle doesn't need to be paid down, it can just be rolled over and over and over. Sort of like the way commercial real estate is. No liability, interest only loans, which get rolled over every 5-7 years.

  • ||

    Actually the Keynsians will tell you that you should pay down the debt during good times so that you can run it up again during bad times. People like Reich are not even Keynesians. Keynes was wrong about a lot of things. But he wasn't insane. His theories were at least internally consistent even if they didn't work very well in the real world.

    Reich and the modern liberals are not even that. They never see a time when debt and spending shouldn't be increased. They really seem to think that the government can expand and spend forever.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Sure, that's the problem. No one ever does. Nobody wants to be "responsible" for causing a recession, so the interest rates are kept low, and spending continues to increase. That's the ultimate flaw in Keynesian economics. They know what Keynesianism says, but knowing, and doing, are two different things. There's a term my Grandfather used to use, but it has racial overtones.

  • Bucky||

    to know and not to do is to follow the party line

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Actually, Mr. Whipple, none of the Public Debt Outstanding was paid down during Clinton's years, not even during the so-called "surplus" times. Look up the PDO charts on the Treasury's website, they'll have the raw numbers.

    The country hasn't actually paid down its debt since 1957.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I thought there was one year that it was. I had looked it up a while back. From what I remember, it wasn't much, but there was a very small down tick, which lasted through the following year, and then started its rise, again.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Figures from the Treasury's web site(starting with the Team Red takeover in Congress in 1995):

    09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

    It came pretty damn close between 1999 and 2000, but that was with the U3 averaging in the sub-4% range.

    Adding the >$250K tax hikes to the budget will only result in an extra $70 billion a year(or, a mere 4% of the current deficit), and that's assuming no subsequent tax avoidance takes place in the teeth of the current depression. Restoring the pre-Dubya tax rates across the board results in about $300 billion a year--a much more signficant chunk, but still not enough.

    And then there's the fact that the government has never collected more than 11% of GDP in income tax revenue and 20% of GDP overall (it was 10.9% in 1999 or 2000, again, when the U3 was at historically low levels).

    To add to this picture of just how fucked this country is by the mathematics, deficit spending has gone up to 12% of GDP for a 2% return, or a negative -10% drop in real GDP. So ultimately, it won't really matter how high the gov decides to raise taxes--in this economic environment, people are going to figure out how to avoid them as much as they can, and the gov will be faced with rapidly diminshing returns after the initial sugar shot.

    I think what a lot of Americans and Europeans are having trouble accepting is that the scale of our technocratic societies has finally exceeded the ability to actually pay for it, no matter how much the Fed and the IMF expand credit availability. That's a 35-year run that's essentially over now, but these societies won't actually accept it until the whole system ends up collapsing and re-scaling to smaller, more sustainable levels.

  • ||

    Remind me; what exactly is it we're "protecting"?

    Welcome to New York, a city where every year since 9/11, tighter security has changed the landscape a little bit at a time, more noticeable to the tourists crowding the streets for the holidays than the residents who have been here all along.

    "There are so many police," said Jackie Carey, 71, of Wilmington, Del., as she looked over Rockefeller Plaza crowds from the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral. "There's like about five policemen on the corner. How many policemen does it take for you to get across the street?"

    At Radio City Music Hall, guards check holiday tourists' purses for weapons before the Rockettes' Christmas Spectacular. In Herald Square, new cameras stare down at shoppers.

    In rail stations, travelers are bombarded with messages warning them to be on the lookout for suspicious activity. There are poison-gas sensors and radiation detectors, automatic license plate readers and random bag searches in the subways.

    The Woolworth Building, a 1913 skyscraper that used to attract hundreds of tourists a day to its ornate lobby, now has a sign at the door saying "Tourists Are Not Permitted Beyond This Point."

    Visitors to the Statue of Liberty must go through two separate, airport-style security checkpoints. Taking pictures of the PATH trains that run under the Hudson is illegal. Even the city's architecture is changing: closed "sky lobbies" are replacing ground-level public spaces; vehicle barriers are de rigueur.
  • ||

    Some of that is okay. The poison gas detectors are a good idea. Radio City is a private place. If they want to check for weapons, I guess they can, although it is a total waste of time. I certainly won't be going there.

    The rest of it is just oppressive stupidity. The airport security at the Statue of Liberty is just bullshit. If they want to blow it up, they will just shoot the security guards and walk in and blow it up. What a joke.

    But remember, NYC is run by Bloomberg. And according to him few of us dolts can ever read and we never own a passport.

  • Mr Whipple||

    My question is, can those bomb sniffing dogs detect other substances?

  • ||

    If you're stupid enough to bring drugs to Lady Liberty, you deserve what you get.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Who said anything about bringing them? People go to NYC to buy them, and usually take the subway.

  • ||

    Yeah! People carrying dried flowers should be fucking castrated!

    A Tulpafail...once more.

  • ||

    I don't think it's moral to beat up a guy just for walking through Harlem at 11 PM shouting "nigger!" at every black person he sees.

    However, if he's stupid enough to do it, he deserves what he gets.

    My drug war opposition credentials are, of course, beyond question, so it should be obvious I wasn't sticking up for the police here at all.

  • Black||

    Someone doesn't understand morality.

  • ||

    You're right, someone doesn't.

  • ||

    You are a such a fucking pig stooge. I mean, did you even think before making this comment? It says more about you than anything else you've ever commented.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "If you're stupid enough to bring drugs to Lady Liberty..."

    Ironic.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    The Woolworth Building, a 1913 skyscraper that used to attract hundreds of tourists a day to its ornate lobby, now has a sign at the door saying "Tourists Are Not Permitted Beyond This Point."

    Is this one security related? I have no idea what the Woolworth Building houses these days, though I presume it's not Woolworth's. Could this just be a building manager deciding it's not worth dealing with hundreds of restroom seekers and hot-dog eaters every day?

  • ||

    John Kerry is a regular guy, who hates rich people. He's looking out for YOU!

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    Yeah, I saw him on Press the Meat this morning. Any of you non-atheist readers, say a quick thank-you to your divinity of choice that this Gomer never got to be president. What a buffoon.

  • John Kerry||

    I'm not an aristocrat. I'm you.

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    I likewise long ago picked up Reich by the scruff of his neck and seat of his pants and mentally threw him out of my mind. I don't like Reason Hit and Run mentioning him. I enjoy H&R, but how I read it reminds me of how I am forced to read the funny pages: with one eye closed to avoid looking at Marmaduke.

  • Mr Whipple||

    You do know he is "vertically challenged".

  • Wind Rider||

    It's that whole tawdriness of dwarf tossing thing.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Got it.

    *finger wagging*

    Bad. Very, very bad!!!

  • ||

    You do know he is "vertically challenged".

    You know who else was vertically challenged?

  • ||

    Nobody tosses a dwarf!!

  • Jake||

    Why don't they just put Marmaduke to sleep?

  • ||

    "There is still insufficient demand was for bad mortgages, bad credit card debt, bad auto debt, bad government debt, bad everything debt, and securities backed by bad debt."

    I cannot understand this sentence.

  • ||

    Delete the word "was"

  • ||

    Surprise! Union fucks good teachers, students. Seniority, bitchez!
    hier

    Quality-blind layoffs are just one vestige of seniority rules introduced decades ago to promote fairness and protect teachers from capricious administrators. Enshrined in state law and detailed in teachers' union contracts, the prerogatives of seniority continue to guide many of the key personnel decisions made in public schools across the country, including pay and assignments. The effects are most keenly felt by students during layoffs.

    The Times sought to measure the impact of about 2,700 seniority-based layoffs in the Los Angeles Unified School District in the last two years. It focused particularly on the performance of about 1,000 elementary and middle school teachers for whom math and English scores were available.

    Among the findings:

    Because seniority is largely unrelated to performance, the district has laid off hundreds of its most promising math and English teachers. About 190 ranked in the top fifth in raising scores and more than 400 ranked in the top 40%.

    Schools in some of the city's poorest areas were disproportionately hurt by the layoffs. Nearly one in 10 teachers in South Los Angeles schools was laid off, nearly twice the rate in other areas. Sixteen schools lost at least a fourth of their teachers, all but one of them in South or Central Los Angeles.

    Far fewer teachers would be laid off if the district were to base the cuts on performance rather than seniority. The least experienced teachers also are the lowest-paid, so more must be laid off to meet budgetary targets. An estimated 25% more teachers would have kept their jobs if L.A. Unified had based its cuts on teachers' records in improving test scores.

    ........

    When United Teachers Los Angeles President A.J. Duffy met with instructors in Liechty's library on a spring morning in 2009, their hopes for a reprieve were quickly dashed.

    Saving your jobs would mean that more experienced teachers would lose theirs, Duffy said, according to interviews with several people at the meeting. Seniority is the only fair way to do it, he said, and any exception would be "an act of disloyalty."
  • Mr Whipple||

    That entire union seniority policy sucks ass. It's not just the teachers. You see it all the time in the construction unions. Those with the most seniority, go out to the jobs, first. Those with the least seniority, sit in the Hall, go to picket sites (with the giant inflatable rat), and/or hand out Democratic Party flyers (for $5 and a Bologna sandwich).

    I made more money working for non-union contractors, in my 20s, then I would have in a union, for the simple fact that, that non-union contractors kept me busy year round.

  • Bucky||

    i just love when they pull out the giant rat. calling someone "dirty rat" went out with the Jimmy Cagney movies. when i see the giant rat it makes me think that it's their mascot.

  • JoshINHB||

    Quality-blind layoffs are just one vestige of seniority rules introduced decades ago to promote fairness and protect teachers from capricious administrators effective supervision.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    That's what UTLA did with Ms. Pineda, my kid's excellent first-grade teacher. She got the axe despite glowing recommendations and an excellent work history, because she only had two years in.

  • ||

    Seniority is the only fair way to

    let me look like I care while absolving me of all blame or responsibility.

  • bobchild||

    Apparently I'm an idiot but... can someone explain to me what Reich's income inequality thesis even is?

    Even if I accept every Keynes every statement as truth, I can't come up with a reason why income inequality could cause AD to be "insufficient."

    It's been a really long time since I've read Keynes, but the closest I can remember him coming to that was that you should target fiscal stuff at low income people 'cause they'll spend it all. Don't remember anything like this.

    Obviously no one here agrees with this statement from the comments above this one but... can someone explain to me what he's even arguing?

  • Mr Whipple||

    I saw him twice on Kudlow, and I couldn't figure it out. I think he, and others, know we are fucked, and they are just grasping at straws.

    How fucked? David Stockman has a pretty good analysis.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....overy-myth

  • ||

    Evil rich people have all the money, duh. They have buried it in their backyards and stashed in their wine cellars. They sleep on huge lumpy mattresses filled with it.

    We must take it away from them, for their own good.

  • bobchild||

    Let me rephrase my question; Is his theory no deeper than chronic rich people under consumption?

    That's obviously a stupid fucking idea. I just want to make sure there's not something more intellectually valid that I'm missing.

  • Eric Cartman||

    It was da j00s! Da j00s took all the money and stashed it in their j00 cave somewhere! Listen to me, people!

  • Tulpa||

    That cave is Israel and IT MUST BE DESTROYED.

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    I still think I could reduce the entire US tax code to 20 pages or less, and write it such that anyone who has completed the 6th grade could not only understand it, but could do their own tax returns in 15 minutes.

    I would start with a trivially small tax rate on income up to full-time minimum wages, say 5%. Everything above that would be taxed at one rate, regardless of source. No corporate income taxes, which they don't actually pay anyway. No inheritance taxes, except for assets that were tax-deferred in the first place, like 401k's. Those would continue to be deferred until they were withdrawn, and would be counted as regular income for that year. Proceeds from sale of inherited items could be rolled over into the beneficiary's deferred accounts, until they were withdrawn, when they too would be treated as income for that year.

    Almost no deductions, mostly for other taxes they you've paid, since that money shouldn't count as income.

    Tax-exempt muni bonds would be unchanged.

    Simple and clear, and fair to everyone. The big-state leftists would hate it, because it doesn't 'punish' anyone.

  • JoshINHB||

    Tax-exempt muni bonds would be unchanged.

    Why?

    The only thing they accomplish is bloated local governments.

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    I debated on that one, actually. I'm not married to it.

  • ||

    If you're stupid enough to bring drugs to Lady Liberty, you deserve what you get.

    You cannot expect to be free in the shadow of Lady Liberty.

    In the hallowed tradition of, "You can't fight in here. This is the War Room."

  • ||

    I just want to make sure there's not something more intellectually valid that I'm missing.

    I don't think so; there are an awful lot of people who seem to believe money somehow mysteriously vanishes from circulation when it enters the pockets of "rich" people.

    Much like the evil Korean merchants of yore ruthlessly extracted all the currency from poor black neighborhoods. The community activists who propagated this scenario carefully avoided the "exchange of value" part of the story.

  • RyanXXX||

    Wikileaks reveals corruption in climate change treaty:

    http://www.beaufortobserver.ne.....reaty.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....ate-accord

    Tell me again how Assange is some crazy pinko leftist?

  • ||

    You don't get it, Ryan! He's out to get the US! That makes him a crazy pinko leftist terrorist worthy of assassination!

  • johnl||

    Wikileaks played no role in breaking the climategate story. The story was already out by the time they got the files.

  • RyanXXX||

    This isn't climategate I'm talking about. It's a new dump

  • ||

    Much like Chony and Max, I'm retarded.

  • ||

    Much like any pussy who posts under someone else's handle, you're...a pussy.

  • RyanXXX||

    +1

  • RyanXXX||

    I'm retarded too.

  • RyanXXX||

    +1

  • ||

    Actually, I'm just retarded; no comparison to others is necessary.

  • RyanXXX||

    +1

  • RyanXXX||

    -1

  • RyanXXX||

    +1

  • ||

    Many Americans, who are not Nobel laureates or former cabinet members or developers or bankers, believe this is a problem.

    WHAT THE FUCK??!?!?

  • ||

    I don't think he meant software developers.

  • ||

    No shit that is why I said:

    "WHAT THE FUCK"

    I am a land developer. In what universe are land developers less concerned about deficits then everyone else?

  • ||

    Simple and clear, and fair to everyone. The big-state leftists would hate it, because it doesn't 'punish' anyone.

    Not to mention the lack of social engineering and economic "fine-tuning" currently in vogue.

    You MONSTER.

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    I'm a total dick, right?

    A few months ago, I told some good friends that I thought behavior manipulation using the tax codes was inherently evil and should be illegal. The response I got was approximately the same one I would have gotten had I run around the room in a bustier, screaming "Allahu Akbar" at the top of my lungs, in Austrian. Complete bedfuddlement. These are some fairly intelligent people, too. I was disappoint.

    As a corollary, I would also like to see the whole concept of "sin taxes" get the dry, hard ass-fucking it so dearly deserves. Yeah, all of them.

  • ||

    They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash...

    And Babe Ruth made more money than President Coolidge; obviously, if we make it illegal for any professional athlete to make more than the President, it'll be skittles and beer from here on out!

    Happy days are here again....

  • hmm||

    I didn't know Tulpa worked for the Cinci PD.

    Cincinnati Bearcat mascot throws snowballs and is arrested
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrQapdkQi5A

  • Tulpa||

    I work for every PD! For free!

  • hmm||

    I couldn't resist. There were snowballs involved.

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement