NYTimes.com Article: Stating the Obvious

Yes, it is a pretty worrying situation.

In relation to Net Art based in America, if people do not hurry up & start
collectively helping each other out(whatever cv, background or school of
thought), you are all gonna be in deep shit. Well, not those who are forging
secret career shifts accordingly, but everyone else should get their skates
on before it is too damn late and join forces…

marc



> This article from NYTimes.com
> has been sent to you by [email protected].
>
>
> if you live in the US you might want to read Krugman. His columns along
with dystopia fantasies such as 'Oryx and Crake' are starting to make me
scared as hell.
>
> [email protected]
>
> /——————– advertisement ———————–
>
> Explore more of Starbucks at Starbucks.com.
> http://www.starbucks.com/default.asp?ci15
> ———————————————————-/
>
> Stating the Obvious
>
> May 27, 2003
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum." So wrote
> the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice
> of solid British business opinion, when surveying last
> week's tax bill. Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd:
> the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut
> carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a
> joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that
> the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other
> promises.
>
> But then maybe that's the point. The Financial Times
> suggests that "more extreme Republicans" actually want a
> fiscal train wreck: "Proposing to slash federal spending,
> particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral
> proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing
> prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door."
>
> Good for The Financial Times. It seems that stating the
> obvious has now, finally, become respectable.
>
> It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish
> programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to
> suggest that the Bush administration's policies might
> actually be driven by those ideologues - that the
> administration was deliberately setting the country up for
> a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be
> sharply cut - was to be accused of spouting conspiracy
> theories.
>
> Yet by pushing through another huge tax cut in the face of
> record deficits, the administration clearly demonstrates
> either that it is completely feckless, or that it actually
> wants a fiscal crisis. (Or maybe both.)
>
> Here's one way to look at the situation: Although you
> wouldn't know it from the rhetoric, federal taxes are
> already historically low as a share of G.D.P. Once the new
> round of cuts takes effect, federal taxes will be lower
> than their average during the Eisenhower administration.
> How, then, can the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid
> - which didn't exist in the 1950's - and Social Security,
> which will become far more expensive as the population
> ages? (Defense spending has fallen compared with the
> economy, but not that much, and it's on the rise again.)
>
> The answer is that it can't. The government can borrow to
> make up the difference as long as investors remain in
> denial, unable to believe that the world's only superpower
> is turning into a banana republic. But at some point bond
> markets will balk - they won't lend money to a government,
> even that of the United States, if that government's debt
> is growing faster than its revenues and there is no
> plausible story about how the budget will eventually come
> under control.
>
> At that point, either taxes will go up again, or programs
> that have become fundamental to the American way of life
> will be gutted. We can be sure that the right will do
> whatever it takes to preserve the Bush tax cuts - right now
> the administration is even skimping on homeland security to
> save a few dollars here and there. But balancing the books
> without tax increases will require deep cuts where the
> money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social
> Security.
>
> The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle
> class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor
> the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will
> raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1
> percent - not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss
> of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per
> year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4
> percent.
>
> The Financial Times suggests this is deliberate (and I
> agree): "For them," it says of those extreme Republicans,
> "undermining the multilateral international order is not
> enough; long-held views on income distribution also require
> radical revision."
>
> How can this be happening? Most people, even most liberals,
> are complacent. They don't realize how dire the fiscal
> outlook really is, and they don't read what the ideologues
> write. They imagine that the Bush administration, like the
> Reagan administration, will modify our system only at the
> edges, that it won't destroy the social safety net built up
> over the past 70 years.
>
> But the people now running America aren't conservatives:
> they're radicals who want to do away with the social and
> economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are
> concocting may give them the excuse they need. The
> Financial Times, it seems, now understands what's going on,
> but when will the public wake up?
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?ex55062423&ei=1&en=
96c064cf2ba28db3
>
>
> ———————————
>
> Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
> reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
> Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
> now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html
>
>
>
> HOW TO ADVERTISE
> ———————————
> For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
> or other creative advertising opportunities with The
> New York Times on the Web, please contact
> [email protected] or visit our online media
> kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
>
> For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
> [email protected].
>
> Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Why? Do you think the Bush Administration will dismantle the internet?

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYTimes.com Article: Stating the Obvious


> Yes, it is a pretty worrying situation.
>
> In relation to Net Art based in America, if people do not hurry up & start
> collectively helping each other out(whatever cv, background or school of
> thought), you are all gonna be in deep shit. Well, not those who are
forging
> secret career shifts accordingly, but everyone else should get their
skates
> on before it is too damn late and join forces…
>
> marc
>
>
>
> > This article from NYTimes.com
> > has been sent to you by [email protected].
> >
> >
> > if you live in the US you might want to read Krugman. His columns along
> with dystopia fantasies such as 'Oryx and Crake' are starting to make me
> scared as hell.
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> > /——————– advertisement ———————–
> >
> > Explore more of Starbucks at Starbucks.com.
> > http://www.starbucks.com/default.asp?ci15
> > ———————————————————-/
> >
> > Stating the Obvious
> >
> > May 27, 2003
> > By PAUL KRUGMAN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum." So wrote
> > the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice
> > of solid British business opinion, when surveying last
> > week's tax bill. Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd:
> > the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut
> > carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a
> > joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that
> > the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other
> > promises.
> >
> > But then maybe that's the point. The Financial Times
> > suggests that "more extreme Republicans" actually want a
> > fiscal train wreck: "Proposing to slash federal spending,
> > particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral
> > proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing
> > prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door."
> >
> > Good for The Financial Times. It seems that stating the
> > obvious has now, finally, become respectable.
> >
> > It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish
> > programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to
> > suggest that the Bush administration's policies might
> > actually be driven by those ideologues - that the
> > administration was deliberately setting the country up for
> > a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be
> > sharply cut - was to be accused of spouting conspiracy
> > theories.
> >
> > Yet by pushing through another huge tax cut in the face of
> > record deficits, the administration clearly demonstrates
> > either that it is completely feckless, or that it actually
> > wants a fiscal crisis. (Or maybe both.)
> >
> > Here's one way to look at the situation: Although you
> > wouldn't know it from the rhetoric, federal taxes are
> > already historically low as a share of G.D.P. Once the new
> > round of cuts takes effect, federal taxes will be lower
> > than their average during the Eisenhower administration.
> > How, then, can the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid
> > - which didn't exist in the 1950's - and Social Security,
> > which will become far more expensive as the population
> > ages? (Defense spending has fallen compared with the
> > economy, but not that much, and it's on the rise again.)
> >
> > The answer is that it can't. The government can borrow to
> > make up the difference as long as investors remain in
> > denial, unable to believe that the world's only superpower
> > is turning into a banana republic. But at some point bond
> > markets will balk - they won't lend money to a government,
> > even that of the United States, if that government's debt
> > is growing faster than its revenues and there is no
> > plausible story about how the budget will eventually come
> > under control.
> >
> > At that point, either taxes will go up again, or programs
> > that have become fundamental to the American way of life
> > will be gutted. We can be sure that the right will do
> > whatever it takes to preserve the Bush tax cuts - right now
> > the administration is even skimping on homeland security to
> > save a few dollars here and there. But balancing the books
> > without tax increases will require deep cuts where the
> > money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social
> > Security.
> >
> > The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle
> > class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor
> > the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will
> > raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1
> > percent - not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss
> > of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per
> > year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4
> > percent.
> >
> > The Financial Times suggests this is deliberate (and I
> > agree): "For them," it says of those extreme Republicans,
> > "undermining the multilateral international order is not
> > enough; long-held views on income distribution also require
> > radical revision."
> >
> > How can this be happening? Most people, even most liberals,
> > are complacent. They don't realize how dire the fiscal
> > outlook really is, and they don't read what the ideologues
> > write. They imagine that the Bush administration, like the
> > Reagan administration, will modify our system only at the
> > edges, that it won't destroy the social safety net built up
> > over the past 70 years.
> >
> > But the people now running America aren't conservatives:
> > they're radicals who want to do away with the social and
> > economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are
> > concocting may give them the excuse they need. The
> > Financial Times, it seems, now understands what's going on,
> > but when will the public wake up?
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?ex55062423&ei=1&en=
> 96c064cf2ba28db3
> >
> >
> > ———————————
> >
> > Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
> > reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
> > Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
> > now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> > HOW TO ADVERTISE
> > ———————————
> > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
> > or other creative advertising opportunities with The
> > New York Times on the Web, please contact
> > [email protected] or visit our online media
> > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
> >
> > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
> > [email protected].
> >
> > Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>