GOP family values
 

THIS makes me like slimey? Sheesh.

smoke & mirrors
 

Kevin Drum has a particularly good pair of posts here and here about the assumptions behind the numbers used to sell Social Security privatization.

In brief, the projection that Social Security will go insolvent in (e.g.) 2042 is based on assumptions about GDP -- that GDP will decline because, inter alia, population growth will decline. On the other hand, the projection that privatization can plug the gap is based on assumptions about annual returns -- that annual returns will be at least 5% and (according to most advocates) 6%-7%. But these are not independent variables, and it would seem to be difficult to conjure up a world in which the economy is growing at less than 2% but investments are steadily gaining 7%.

As Drum says in the comments to one of those posts:

• Historical real returns on stocks have been in the neighborhood of 4.5-5%. However, that's because (a) GDP growth has been about 3.5% and (b) PE ratios have increased, meaning that stock prices have grown even faster than GDP.
  
  However, lower population growth means lower GDP growth. No way around that. And there's no good reason to think that PE ratios are going to go up yet again. In fact, it's more likely that they're going to fall a bit.
  
  But privatization advocates keep claiming that stock returns can be high withough acknowledging that this assumes continuing high GDP growth. And even if they're right, this high GDP growth negates the very reason for private accounts.
  
  It's a real shell game.
  
  (FWIW, productivity growth has been very high for the past few years, and it's possible that it might stay higher than historical averages for a long time. If it does, GDP growth might very well be in the 2.5-3% range. I find this quite plausible myself — although I don't know if I want to bet the farm on it just yet — but if it's true then Social Security is in great shape. No need to do anything at all.)

GOP family values
 

We are watching you. Keep up the good work.

No Comment Dept.
 

• Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
  
  "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.
  
  Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.
  
  "We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.
  
  * * * * *
  
  "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

AP, via SF Gate

GOP family values
 

That's incredible. Penske rarely admits he's wrong.

caption, please
 

caption, please
 

"You have to dig through the landfills," Rumsfeld replied, "because we're conducting an experiment in nation-building that has neither gone as planned nor was really planned for very well. Now we are trapped in an intractable ground war with an insurgency we created. Oh, and we're fighting it using a woefully understaffed, undersupplied fighting force we deployed on erroneous assumptions. We fucked up, Tommy. Now I must ask you to re-enlist."

[from Wonkette, I wish I could take credit]

Caption, Part The Next One
 

http://www.wonkette.com/images/inter...position-2.jpg

"Look, you're a fantastic candidate, and were very close to the top of the list, but for Education Secretary someone having the name "Spellings" was really too perfect to resist. Hope you understand."

Caption, Part The Next One
 

(tweaking Gatti--)

"You're just what I'm looking for in a cabinet secretary, but I couldn't resist havin' an Education Secretary by the name of 'Spellings.'"

Caption, Part The Next One
 

Yes, the English-to-Texan babelfish is working well these days. Nice job.

Caption, Part The Next One
 

"I just loved you in Avenue Q -- "The Internet is For Porn" is my favorite song!"

Caption, Part The Next One
 

"Jenna? Barbra? You girls alright?"

S_A_M

Rummy 4-eva
 

Wow. I had no idea that Meyerson of WaPo was such a liberal weenie.

• WASHINGTON, Dec. 8, 2016 -- President-elect George P. Bush announced today that he would reappoint Donald Rumsfeld to another term as secretary of defense. Rumsfeld has served in that position since he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001. After serving two terms in George W. Bush's administration, Rumsfeld served an additional two terms in the subsequent administration of President Jeb Bush. His 16 consecutive years heading the Pentagon is the longest uninterrupted tenure of any defense secretary, and that doesn't include the nearly two years he served in that post under President Gerald Ford. Rumsfeld is 84.
  
  Sources close to the president-elect say that failing to reappoint Rumsfeld would be taken as a criticism of his uncle, former president George W. Bush, whose decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003 has bogged down U.S. forces there in a bloody and ongoing conflict that has lasted nearly 14 years. "George W. is mighty proud of independent Kurdistan," said one former official who is close to the Bush family. "He may have regrets about the Islamic Theocratic Republic of Basra, particularly since they got the bomb, and the PTCZWBOS [Permanent Temporary Curfew Zone Where Baghdad Once Stood], but he'll never admit it."

nukes? what nukes?
 

What you thought you knew about North Korea's nuclear program may be wrong.

Now, who would believe that this White House would hype another nation's nuclear program to get people riled up? Impossible. Improbable.

caption, please
 

How you like me know motha fucka