JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
yabits
Small government? Then why did George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress (for 6 out of 8 years) preside over the largest increases in government spending since LBJ's Great Society programs? A small government program of preemptively attacking other nations (aka the Bush Doctrine), but unwilling to raise taxes to pay for their wars?
The Republicans might spout a philosophy of small government, but their actions prove otherwise. They just want power, and they'll say anything to get it.
Posted in: Obama aide says economic stimulus battle not over
0
yabits
Yes, Iran, we in the United States have problems with our conservatives too. Unraveling economies appears to be one of their specialties.
The best thing in Khatami's favor is that the United States now has a leader who is neither arrogant nor unintelligent. The whole "Axis of Evil" thing essentially made it much easier for someone like Ahmadinejad to take office.
Posted in: Khatami to run again for Iran presidency
0
yabits
You are close to the solution, but here is the problem with your statement: By "their money," what you mean for the vast majority of people is the money allotted for their work as determined by those at the top, who end paying themselves vast sums that are completely out of proportion to their value. People who believe that a free market system is at work here are totally deluding themselves.
If putting more money in the hands of more people can spur the economy, and I believe it can, then here's a much better and sure-fire way to accomplish it:
First, as I have mentioned before, have the government establish a set ratio for executive salaries pegged to the average salary of the lowest level employees within a given company. Reward companies that adhere to the standard by making them totally exempt from paying any corporate taxes. Tax like hell those companies that do not adhere to the standard.
This would have the advantage of not being a government bailout, and the increased incomes of more workers would contribute back to the tax base as well as spur the economic growth the you claim having people with more money to spend will do. Having the extra money show up in regular paychecks, rather than irregular government stimulus checks, will do more to restore consumer confidence.
Posted in: Senators reach deal to cut Obama's economic stimulus bill to $780 billion
0
yabits
I certainly and strongly objected to the deficits that were projected to be created as a result of the tax cut plan in 2001. At the time, the United States was faced with the prospect of being able to pay off a substantial portion of the national debt. When an economy is running at near-full employment, running deficits is a terrible thing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, in a free market economy that continually creates winners and losers, a safety net will be needed at all times, but the individuals who need to depend upon that net will change as they get back on their feet and back into the system. Yes, there will be a tiny percentage who suffer chronic underemployment, but completely dismantling the safety net for everyone else is something only the most callous of conservatives can endorse.
Congress did not force any bank to give a loan to any party that was not qualified to pay it back. Such a position is a bizzare distortion of reality.
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
This is very true, Likeitis.
US history with Iran follows a classic pattern of undermining the democratic, nationlizing forces within another nation, lending support to an overthrow and eventual takeover by a dictator, forming a close relationship with that dictator in order to gain preferred access to the nation's wealth of resources, and then making good use of the dollars sent to that nation (in exchange for resources) by selling the weaponry and means to keep the dictatorship in power.
This is largely how US policy has created the enemies necessary to keep the military-corporate complex fueled at home.
Posted in: Biden to Iran: U.S. will talk, but is ready to act
0
yabits
I don't have much of a problem with Iran having its fist still clenched towards the United States over the next few years. After all, the process by which the Iranians felt they needed to keep it clenched has lasted generations and led to the Islamic Revolution -- which approaches its 30th anniversary this month. I see more of a problem with Americans doing a month-by-month check to see if the fist is clenched and making snap decisions as a result. This type of short-term thinking reflects an endemic, self-defeating approach by so many of my fellow Americans.
There are a few points that should be considered with Iran. First is the acceptance that liberal democracy is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Islamic theocracy. The concept of the separation of church and state -- a core principle of liberal democracy -- is alien to Islamic hardline thinking. (It is treated with some hostility by religious fundamentalists among the American conservative movement too.)
Second is Iran's difficult balance in keeping the identity of the 1979 revolution intact while slowly opening up to the outside world. Signs of hope in this regard is the 16-year period from 1985 to 2005, when Iran's presidency was held by two men (Rafsanjani and Khatami) who nudged it away from the extreme hard-line approach of the revolution's key ideological founder. The democratic election of the current president is very much a response to a trend that many Iranians felt was going too far too fast.
Third is the realization that nations like Turkey, Malaysia, and China may have a lot more influence over Iran than the US over the next decade. The first two are nations that are predominantly Moslem, but have made great strides in reconciling Islam with modernization. China, because it underwent a revolution that was every much as hardline in its ideology as Iran's, but has demonstrated that close ties with the United States is a key ingredient to economic development and prosperity.
Posted in: Biden to Iran: U.S. will talk, but is ready to act
0
yabits
Unfortunately, the Republican Party has an innate requirement to run on such slogans because "Country First" is precisely what what they are NOT about.
The country has decided at the polls that they want to give the Democrats a chance to get the nation out of the hole that the Republicans led it into. The Republicans want to obstruct that effort. They are more afraid that the economic stimulus package might actually work, and the Democrats getting the credit, than of it loading on more debt to that which the administration of the past 8 year has accrued.
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
People should be able to see through the Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill and clearly detect that their motive is not what is best for the nation, but what most benefits the weakened Republican brand politically. No one can look over the Republican record of the past 8 years and claim that what they did was in the best interests of the United States.
But we see some posters already licking their chops that Obama and the Democrats will fail, and that the nation will sink deeper into the mess its in so that it may benefit Republicans in 2012 and 2016. In their wishes, they are certainly showing their true colors.
Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has written some pretty good points of what is the likely Republican strategy regarding the economic bill: "My guess is that the GOP's best strategy is to oppose the stimulus as close to unanimously as possible, but then have it pass anyway. Even with the stimulus, we're still likely to be in for a tough couple years. Which means that, in 2010, the GOP would be able to claim that Obama spent all this money with little to show for it, and that their objections have been born out. It will obviously be a preposterous claim--an economy barely limping along after nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus would have been in terrible shape with a smaller stimulus, or no stimulus at all--but the thing about politics is that you never get to see the counterfactual. I suspect the GOP would make some headway with this argument."
He concludes: "On the other hand, I wouldn't sweat it too much if I were the White House. There are a certain number of Republicans in swing districts whose constituents, with only a little prodding, will understand that the GOP's preference was to do almost nothing at a time when people wanted quick, decisive action. I'm just saying my scenario probably gets the GOP more politically than the alternatives. (Derailing it is bad for the reasons I mentioned. And collaborating with Obama wouldn't really cut them in for much credit, but would leave them on the hook for part of the blame if the stimulus didn't do the trick...)"
Source: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/05/what-s-the-gop-s-optimal-stimulus-strategy.aspx
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
Betzee, You are welcome.
To appreciate how we got into this mess, a good place to begin is to go back to the campaign of 2000: a time when the CBO was projecting federal surpluses in the trillions and Alan Greenspan was warning about the dangers of paying off too much of the national debt too soon. Oh, to be in the position of confronting that problem again!
During one of the debates between Bush and Gore on the subject of tax cuts, Bush swore up and down that his cuts -- tax cuts for the rich -- would take no more than a third of the projected surpluses (a lie), and that he would use a third to shore up Social Security (another lie), and that the final third would go towards a trillion-dollar emergency fund (sheer fantasy). The CBO was correct in its estimates that the then-proposed tax cuts would return the federal budget back into deficit terrority, and they were proven right -- especially when coupled with yet another Bush lie when he failed in his promise to keep federal discretionary spending to the limits set by his predecessor.
Other Republicans, for their part, insisted that the tax cuts would pay for themselves via the magic of supply-side economics. That they were proven wrong is a matter of record. The component of the deficits due to the tax cuts is far larger than the level of increased spending.
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
We know the year and under whose administration North Korea tested its first nuke. We also note under whose administration the most progress has been made to this point by Iran.
Posted in: Biden to Iran: U.S. will talk, but is ready to act
0
yabits
wuzzademcrat brings up the CBO's report that the stimulus will be harmful to the economy over the long haul. Yes, it does say that by 2019, GDP may be reduced by a net 0.1 to 0.3 percent.
According to the link, the CBO also estimates that near-term growth will be 1.4 to 4.1 percent growth higher than if there is no action, and in 2010, the plan will produce 1.2 to 3.6 percent growth. I would call that "stimulus." Those who claim the bill won't do anything over the near-term are refuted by the CBO.
A lot can happen between 2011 and 2019, and no one knows how bad things may get in over the short term if Congress just sits on its hands. Now, those in the Republican districts may have elected their representatives to obstruct or to sit and do nothing, but the Americans who voted for Democrats have been expecting action.
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
Criticize all you want, allies, the purchase of US iron and steel for infrastructure projects does NOT violate any provisions of the WTO. The WTO treaty allowed nations to make exceptions for government procurement for specific industries. What industries did the USA decide to include under the exception? That's right: iron and steel.
The outcry against the Buy American provisions is largely being orchestrated by corporate lobbyists working on behalf of foreign businesses.
Posted in: Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
Where were you when the Republicans were spending like drunken sailors over the past 8 years?
Posted in: Senators reach deal to cut Obama's economic stimulus bill to $780 billion
0
yabits
LOL!! All I know is that I'm paying less than $1.70 per gallon to buy it, like any consumer in my state. (Unlike over $4.00 a few months ago.) Nevertheless, the economy is still down the tubes and banks are not lending. Banks not lending was not a problem back in the 70s, and the stimulus package is needed to restore faith in the entire system.
Posted in: Senate struggles on Obama's economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG, et. al. all made it through the 1970s quite nicely.
I disagree; OPEC is not to blame. The fact that oil prices are back down to around $40/bbl as of this writing and the economy is expected to remain in bad shape for many, many months blows your position out of the water.
Posted in: Senate struggles on Obama's economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
Yoko is one of those irritants such that the world might produce a pearl or two.
Posted in: Yoko Ono sounds off
0
yabits
The plain truth about this "Buy American" provision:
John B. Judis, writing in The New Republic: "Officials from Canada and European Union have complained loudly that a provision in the House stimulus bill that requires American steel and iron for infrastructure projects violates the World Trade Organization rules. But guess what? They don't. The treaty allowed countries to make exceptions for government procurement for specific industries. The U.S. stipulated iron and steel. The EU--not to be outdone--stipulated drinking water, transportation, telecommunications, and energy. Canada stipulated steel, motor vehicles, and coal. So these complaints--and the similar outcry among corporate lobbyists in Washington--is base hypocrisy. And it's too bad that President Barack Obama is listening to them."
From Todd Tucker of Public Citizen:
"Translated out of trade lingo, both Canada and EU give their nations' products much more generous preferences than Congress is even considering giving ours. While current U.S. laws (merely extended in the stimulus bill) give U.S. iron and steel a leg up over the foreign competition for transit projects, Canada and the EU give their firms a leg up over American companies and products on EVERY aspect of transit funding, and many other government purchases besides.
"And, we're not criticizing them for it: why SHOULD decisions by democratically elected parliaments about how to best spend tax dollars on domestic infrastructure be subject to constraints imposed by international trade agreements? There is no "protectionism" at issue here. But, it is certainly hypocrisy--and perhaps a bit of opportunism--on the part of Ottawa and Brussels."
Posted in: What do you think about the 'Buy American' provision in the economic stimulus bill being debated in the U.S. Congress?
0
yabits
bandacleo writes: "I see no reason the US can't bounce back with a vengence these next two years."
Perhaps you don't understand the situation.
If what you said about OPEC being the cause held any water, then the oil shocks of the 1970s -- where adjusting for inflation puts the price similar to the run-up last fall -- were NOT accompanied by bank failures and the collapse of Wall Street firms like Lehman and Bear Stearns, and insurance companies like AIG. Back then, did the Fed push interest rates to near-zero? No.
What we are dealing with here is vastly different and it is a pity that you just don't understand it.
Posted in: Senate struggles on Obama's economic stimulus bill
0
yabits
I was expecting a story about a Zen retreat.
Posted in: Serenity and service
0
yabits
Sarge writes: "Make no mistake, [entirely throw out the entire notion of private management of private business] is the agenda of the liberals who have taken power.
LOL! It is on no liberal agenda that I know of, and I'm speaking as a liberal.
Now, what specific item in the stimulus package threatens to entirely throw out private management of private business? Or is this yet another example of the conservative agenda of misinformation and mindless fear-mongering?
Posted in: Senate struggles on Obama's economic stimulus bill