Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 19 : 20 : <21> : 22 : 23 : 24
"What is black steel?"
Isn't that a porn term?
GOOD GOD!
Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Tx., sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
Hey rabbit, these a-holes are playing you and your cousins like a fiddle!!!! Don't that just piss you off?
Should have listened to ol' stink. I told you so I told you so. That is from salon.com by the way.
Funny shit happens when the GOP ends up in court...which they seem to do quite often.
http://i1.neilrogers.com/media/features/2005083101-presidential.wmv
Making fun of the presidential monkey is so damn easy! And this is very funny! Guffaw!
@fink: twist & shout - Let me grow, ok?
And yes, I'm quite disappointed with how things are panning out with George W. I'm ready to join the Professor to see this thing turned around, but I don't see the Dems as being my savior yet either.
Here's a little thead I started awhile back that didn't seem to register a blip on the PTT radar screen, but I think it will give you a little insight as to where my mind has been heading lately.
@Tally - I looked at the post you listed and it seems that most of what the GAO said was "could have", "may have", "vulnerable" and so forth in describing the electronic voting machines and network. Not quite the same as saying it did happen (not that I'm really disputing that, just trying to read what the article really said).
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 5:53:26 AM
Good read last two pages.
What LGM is saying a few posts up about clever manipulation of the masses. Right on. Thats it in a nutshell. It started more like 40 years ago though in my mind, with Nixon. Same party, different clown.
It's a cleverly spun society indeed. I always wonder, are the people here using manipulative phrasing on purpose, or if it's just some defense mechanism that society has stamped us with?
It's kinda funny actually. For instance it's an outright falsehood when Stink shouts in caps that profits gleaned from outsourcing are going only to CEO's & stockholders. Corporations don't work exactly that way. You're using the same tactic you say was used to sell the war Stink - playing on emotions. And Tally too, according to that article he linked the GAO did not find nor confirm what he's boldly claiming they did.
All this fanatical internet/beltway boys hyperbole these days. Anyone else getting sick of it? So often it's seemingly halve truths fit only for those who's beliefs are supported and/or feel comforted (entertained?) by it and nothing more IMO.
If the spin doctors think this is being emblematic of what it takes to make changes and successfully be proactive - they're kidding themselves I think.
"Corporations don't work exactly that way"
and
"You're using the same tactic you say was used to sell the war Stink - playing on emotions. "
c'mon az, that's complete bs.
This tactic is called equivocating. If you disagree with my assessment on the economics of outsourcing productions, give me some meat. Don't try to equivocate and make it seem like I'm playing one extreme while discrediting another.
Please: if its an outright falsehood: elucidate. Otherwise, you are just calling me a liar. Calling someone a liar is easily done. And now I've looked a little more closely...my conclusion on tally's link was the same as yours and rabbits: it was hyperbole. So you use some instances of hyperbole, throw my argument into the mix (though you aren't able/willing to explain how my argument is in error) and then marginalize us all.
Nice bit of work. You marginalize the GOP, you marginalize lefty posters, and you stake a claim for the middle ground.
ok. But do me this favor: before you marginize what I say as just another lie, please refute it with reason or evidence.
Otherwise...i'll consider that reaction as just a personal potshot.
Rabbit: I agree with you once again. The dems aren't offering much in the way of options/alternatives. But here's the kicker -- make me a promise, that if one of them does, you'll consider what they have to say, and not just be persuaded by the hurricane strength smear campaign that such a person will engender from the GOP, from status quo democrats and from the media. The person will be instantly portrayed as extreme.
Right az?
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 8:47:30 AM
Thanks for the responses...I'll keep reading. I don't always read all the posts, but this is one of the few threads I check regularly due to the level of thinking that occurs.
I tend to be a straightforward person. Here is a general question about politics and the mindset of those who pursue it as a career. I am assuming (or hoping) that many politicians, when they were just starting out, genuinely wanted to improve society. They saw flaws, wanted to make a difference, and started on their merry way. I also assume that most of these people are highly educated, many with law degrees.
Given Az's comment about the abundance of spin/disinformation/half-truths, I ponder (1) do all politicians lose that pure intent to "do good" and succumb to the power/money available to their posts or (2) is it merely a requisite of the position? I have come to envision politicians as those who deceive those they should be representing to get what they want. Granted, we all have to be self-serving to a degree, but when our decisions affect millions, I would think those running the show, given their education/intelligence (mb not the same thing) and the gravity of their decisions would err on the side of generousity.
Maybe part of the problem is lack of original thinking. What if we replaced the entire House & Senate with a new group of intelligent people, from varied walks of life. Granted, this is impractical and will not happen, but do you think their new perspective and lack of party affiliation would enable more progress towards common goals?
Rabbit: I read your ol post and it seems very related to prof's above. Those are good ?s. I'll try to weigh in when I get time...
and besides, I'm still waiting for az to justify calling me a liar. I said this:
The money still flows into america from factories outsourced to these countries...BUT IT ONLY GOES INTO THE HANDS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND CEOS. The corporations production costs are dramatically decreased, so the profit line expands! Great, great for business! Looks great on a graph, but this money doesn't fuel the american middle class whoes jobs were outsourced. That is to say: the money doesn't re-enter the economy through the consumer spending of the middle class.
And yet, it does trickle back into the economy. Ceos and stockholders dispense it back into the economy every time they order a latte.
And he called it an outright falsehood, without bothering to disprove the assertions.
Let's have it az. You want to marginalize me as an extremist? Start with these claims. Otherwise, quit taking potshots...
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 8:58:39 AM
Here's a little data from the Economic Opportunity Institute-
Men's wages in Washington State in constant dollars
Notice the lower income level and the middle income level in comparison to the upper income level.
More later
EDIT- this is expressed in the form of hourly wages
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 11:34:46 AM
Similar time period- median wages for households
Compares homes with working wife, wife not working, and single moms
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 11:31:13 AM
And related-
Average annual hours worked by married couples
Connect this with the previous graph- ever wonder why there's no time to have fun?
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 11:28:41 AM
Grim stats.
Working harder, earning less. LGM, were those salaries reported in adjusted figures? If not, its even more frightening.
Globalism is a war on the poor and is hammering the american middle class while simultaneously making the rich richer
Az? Potshot or retraction? And to our GOP's staunchest: feel free to wade in to this discussion on economics. Anytime.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 11:28:15 AM
I'm pretty sure the dollars are adjusted for inflation, stink.
Here's another one.
Growth in Median Income for lower and middle class families
Growth in Median Income for top fifth and top 1 %
And here's the last two graphs combined on the same scale
Any comments?
Here's something that seems interesting to me: the definition of middle class. LGM, that graph pegs the middle class as averaging about 50 Gs a year. Is that middle class? Is middle class the middle fifth? Any graph that has the range for the middle fifth and how many people fall into this range? 50 grand a year seems pretty low, when you consider that's probably two incomes.
I found this at factcheck.org
There's no standard definition of "middle class," so we looked at households with pre-tax income of between $25,000 and $75,000 -- a group occupying roughly the middle half of the Census income distribution tables. As we noted before, that group grew smaller during the economic recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. Now the new Census figures indicate it continued to decline in 2003, and while this time some of the middle group were moving up , a larger portion were moving down.
It also said:
Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.
At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years.
Furthermore, that process did not stop in 2003 despite the resumption of job growth in September and 4.4% growth in the economy as measured by Gross Domestic Product. The middle-income group lost 0.4 percentage points in 2003.
The upper-income group -- those with income over $75,000 a year -- has also suffered since Bush took office, declining by 0.4 percentage points over three years. However, upper-income households bounced back a bit last year, by two-tenths of a percentage point, and now are back at just over 26% of all households.
So by this measure, the "middle class" continued to shrink in 2003 , and while some "middle class" households moved to the upper-income group, a larger proportion moved down.
it wasn't trying to blame the phenomenon on bush, but questioning the accuracy of jf kerry's statements.
I'm not blaming this on bush either, I wanted more recent info to support LGM's.
Looking at LGM's graphs, the middle class has been catching it for some time now.
And then we have this:
Incomes are growing smartly for the first time in years, spurring unexpectedly robust spending by consumers. The revival, however, is mainly among top earners who receive stocks, bonuses and other income in addition to wages.
The nearly 80 percent of Americans who rely mostly on hourly wages barely maintained their purchasing power, according to the Labor Department. Raises have been meager, averaging about 2.7 percent in the past year -- a tad above the 2.5 percent inflation rate.
Incomes are up a more robust 7.5 percent when bonuses, stock compensation, commissions and other wage supplements are added, according to the Commerce Department.
Most of the boost, though, is felt by those at the top end of the income scale.
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050730-114005-1449r.htm
Greenspan goes on to blame education system for not preparing students with the math and science courses they will need in the new economy. See? In the old days, students who struggled could still eek out a good living if they were willing to work hard in production jobs. They could still attain middle class status. Now? Now they work at McJobs.
I'm not sure exactly how to define middle class, but I think a rough look at fifths gets us a good picture of the trends in incomes over the past years. I also wonder what a graph of the top one percent of the top percent would look like. How has income for the Waltons', Gates' and similar families fared?
Here's sompin on the waltons:
Wal-Mart's Walton family now has 771,287 times more money than the median U.S. Household.
And two more interesting pieces http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3424769
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/20050419-td.html
Incidently, walmart is the largest employer in new hampshire.
If anyone cares. But, I guess they don't, as you and I appear to be having a two-way conversation.
Of course JJ/chief have nothing to add. Their economic beliefs are currently being discredited as we speak.
Thomas Jefferson’s vision of America was quite straightforward. In its simplest form, he saw a society where people were first, and institutions were second.
In his day, Jefferson saw three agencies that were threats to humans’ Natural Rights. They were:
Governments (particularly in the form of kingdoms and elites like the Federalists)
Organized religions (he re-wrote the New Testament to take out all the “miracles” so that in “The Jefferson Bible” Jesus became a proponent of God-given Natural Rights),
Commercial monopolies and the “pseudo aristoi” (pseudo aristocracy) in the form of extremely wealthy individuals and overly powerful corporations.
All institutions, in Jefferson’s view, must be subordinate to the humans that created them, including governments, religious institutions, and corporations.
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. - Jefferson
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 1:38:18 PM
...shall all become wolfs.
We there yet? Speaking of wolfs and walmart:
The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a watchdog group, released a report in September, The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy, detailing the recent increase in Wal-Mart and Walton philanthropy and noting its likely relationship to the company's image problems. Indeed, the increase has been staggering. The Walton Family Foundation (WFF) gave away $106.9 million in 2003--the most recent year for which data are available--twice as much as in 2000. Wal-Mart's company PAC, now the third-largest corporate PAC and the second-largest corporate donor to the GOP , gave away $2.1 million in 2004, compared with just $100,000 in 1994. The Walton family, too, has greatly increased its political giving; in 2004, for example, Alice donated $2.6 million to the influential Republican PAC Progress for America, which supported the sleazy Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and gave Bush a critical push in the election's final months. Since 1999 the Wal-Mart Foundation (WMF)--a company-controlled entity with no direct connection to the WFF--has tripled its giving and by the end of this year will have doled out more than $200 million in cash and merchandise, according to spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/featherstone
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anyone up for a round of connect the dots? GOP/walmart dots, people, dots...
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 2:27:49 PM
So rabbit: what happens when jefferson's top three threats join up? GOP/Corporations/Christian Right.
Are we starting to understand what we're up against yet?
Aw you c'mon Stinky my point was not to marginialize you at all. I just find it can easily be said the statement you made (the part I quoted) is somewhat of a manipulation of fact to prove a point. I would think you would have at least acknowledged that. Re read my whole post if you care too.
It's a really simple explanation btw. You're blatantly discounting the fact that corporations often times do employ a huge domestically based workforce in departments like sales, product development, marketing and elsewhere. Also, if you look at major shareholders in any publicly traded company you'll see organizations like the UAW heavily investing retirement dollars. There goes the average joe doesn't
always benefit argument you're purporting.
So if you wanted to respond further then I guess you could at least do me the favor of explaining why the assertion you're shouting, "BUT IT ONLY GOES INTO THE HANDS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND CEOS", is unequivocal in it's truthfulness. It's not. To quote you elsewhere, "Moo Moo Moo".
The questions Professor raises are similar to my own. Some CEO's do err on the side of generosity. I've worked for a few that certainly fit that bill to a tee. Both dems FWIW. I consider myself lucky in that respect. I'm thankful for it. In this day and age perhaps that's not the norm.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 3:05:31 PM
"is somewhat of a manipulation" is quite a step back from "outright falsehood." back pedal much?
And christ on a crutch, what do I make of this?
You're blatantly discounting the fact that corporations often times do employ a huge domestically based workforce in departments like sales, product development, marketing and elsewhere
But you see az, I was speaking about corporations that outsource jobs, didn't you get that? Of course corporations employ huge domestic workforces blah blah blah. I was making a point about corporations that outsource, not corporations generally. That should have been obvious.
Also, if you look at major shareholders in any publicly traded company you'll see organizations like the UAW heavily investing retirement dollars. There goes the average joe doesn't always benefit argument you're purporting.
Aside from the syntactic difficulty of this statement, I'm having trouble with the concept. The united auto workers union heavily invests retirement dollars...ok? Um? What the hell does this have to do with outsourcing? The united autoworkers aren't employers...the united autoworkers...invest...uh. Oh, I get it. Because the united auto workers invest, I don't have an argument? Weak.
So then we have my over-blown "BUT IT ONLY GOES...YADAYAYDAYADA." is it unequivocal? Well, no. Is it truthful, well yes. Its simple economics.
[http://www.blogsource.org/
Global Insight chief economist Nariman] Behravesh added that the U.S. Economy benefits from global outsourcing because they help increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product by $68.7 million in 2005. By 2010, he expects outsourcing to increase GDP by $147.4 million. For corporations, Behravesh said outsourcing helps them lower costs and improves profits, which he added are often reinvested in new products and services. Consumers benefit because outsourcing helps lower software and service costs, encouraging them to spend
Its an interesting site, and I suspect its housed in india due 1) to the citation of indian sources 2) their pro-outsourcing slant.
You see, lower production costs and improved profit margin? Yeah? Ok, now az, add in the fact that american workers are COMPLETELY out of the equation, and won't be getting paid to do anything. Get it?
Now, you can split a couple hairs: yes, an american truck driver still hauls the crap to the store from the dock, or an american can stock a shelf or what ever. It misses the point. Production jobs were great jobs and a chance for a huge sector of americans to attain upward mobility. Production jobs like those at GM, Ford, Firestone...whatever, lifted the economic situation of the american working class.
The fact of the matter is, your potshot at me has no merit. Your argument is weak. This potshot came from somewhere else, somewhere personal.
And I'll tell you this: if you're going to attempt to challenge me on factual basis, fine I can take it. Just bring the facts. I am occasionally proven wrong. But if your going to attempt to challenge me on a personal basis: that's also fine and I can deal with that too. I don't play nice when people take bullshit side swipes at me, so if this is your game, bring a lunch next time.
EDIT: ok, I went back and re-read your post. Perhaps the tone I read into it isn't there. Perhaps you were just saying I was being a bit over-blown. Your use of "outright falsehood" though is only one shade weaker than "lie." and you did try to marginalize me by conflating me with others who make horsehist claims, as I explained. In your next post, you provide feeble counter arguments while saying you didn't mean to marginalize me. You back peddle from liar, I guess, to over-blown. Yes, I am at times overblown. Fanatical I'm not (as you insinuated in the first post), a liar I am not. Anyway, I take it as a weak shot over my bow. Perhaps its not intended that way, but there are plenty of signs.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 4:03:52 PM
78Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc.Kurt R. HarringtonCFO$1,236,753.00
80WGL Holdings Inc.James H. DeGraffenreidt Jr.Chairman and CEO$1,219,300.00
81ManTech International Corp.Eugene C. RenziSenior Executive Vice President$1,201,069.00
82Strayer Education Inc.Robert S. SilbermanChairman and CEO$1,195,000.0092
83Watson Wyatt & Co. HoldingsJohn J. HaleyChairman, President and CEO$1,174,711.00
84ManTech International Corp.George J. PedersenChairman and CEO$1,171,936.00
85Pepco Holdings Inc.Dennis R. WraaseChairman, President and CEO$1,168,838.00
Bolded is my old boss when I was VP of marketing for Strayer Education. The list was compiled by the Washington Post and is the top 100 highest paid execs in Metro D.C.
If you only knew how little this dude worked. He was grossly over compensated. That number does not include the roughly 7.5 million in stock options per annum.
Good guy but he made me sick. I liked him a lot but the high salaries of top execs at Strayer had dismal consequences on the ability for people like me to hire a decent staff. They simply wouldn't pay enough. The COO made almost exactly half that number. Still incredibly high IMO.
I liked him because we shared the same affliction, fishing. I disliked him because I was jealous of the silver spoon that has been hanging out of his ass since birth.
I could go on but about why those high salaries degraded the quality of service we provided by crippling the amounts we could pay qualified people but that would be old hat I'm sure.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
@Stink
You're beginning to intimidate me. Don't take that the wrong way. No offense is intended. I'm just making the point that your verbal prowess and intellect can be wielded powerfully (not that there's anything wrong with that). In fact, I enjoy reading your posts. You're a great writer, well reasoned and thoughtful (I apologize if the praise is too effusive). Some might say, however, that sometimes you might seem to be a teensy-tiny, itsy-bitsy, little-bit too aggressive when challenged. 'Too aggressive' might be too strong -- if it is, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. Maybe I should better say that you're strong in your belief and unafraid in it's defense. Perhaps 'strong' is a poor choice of words -- if so, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. Maybe I should better say that you're confident in your beliefs and capable of their support. That's not quite right either. I think you know what I'm trying to say, Stink.
If what I've said has upset you, then, in my defense, you have misunderstood me. However, I'm not saying you misunderstood me because you're not smart or paying attention. In fact, a misunderstanding would not be of your cause, whatsoever. If you did misunderstand me it's entirely my fault for not communicating clearly. Therefore, if you're upset, it is my fault -- please don't be upset for my failure to communicate. If you are upset, you should know I was trying to communicate something that wouldn't have offended you and would likely have earned your agreement. That's not to say you must agree with me if you choose otherwise -- I would never ask that of you (unless you wanted me to do so).
Maybe I should delete this whole post -- I don't want it to upset you.
In fact, Stink, I think you're perfect and believe all of your comments are truth (unless that upsets you -- in which case, please tell me what to think).
Thanks and, again, sorry if you're upset. And sorry if all of my apologizing is making you upset.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 5:51:42 PM
@Az
The spin doctors spin because the 'masses' don't pay attention to detail or think critically. Political power comes from creating an issue of importance and aligning your party with the majority opinion. The best issues are simple and easily polarized.
Here's the recipe:
1. Choose the polarizing issue.
2. Work to make it an important issue to the masses.
3. Portray your party as aligned with majority opinion.
4. Bastardize minority opinion and align it with the other party.
5. When the other side attempts to defend or change topic, attack.
Stink is working to create an issue of importance (the plight of the working class). It's a good issue for us. It's not a good issue for you. You therefore have three choices:
1) Avoid/change the issue;
2) Sell yourself as better aligned with majority opinion; or,
3) Attack ticky-tack pieces of the message and/or messenger.
Which did you choose?
Why not try breaking away from the formula for a change. Have some integrity and argue the topic.
Stink's point (the big picture message) was that this administration's economic policies are disproportionately advantageous to the rich, to the expense of the poor and middle-class. Does it really matter a whole lot to the big picture arguement if outsourcing also has a little bit of a positive impact outiside of the executive suite and stockholder ranks? It matters only if you're afraid of a real discussion on topic.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 5:25:09 PM
44!!!!!
^^
ok, you are right, and point taken. But listen, you overestimate me. Which is to say, maybe you mis-overestimate me. I'm really not all that bright. And I'm not trying to bully, but I took az's posts as sideways attacks, and it looks like you got that impression also. I'm just saying...attack up front, if that is your game.
But some might say that sometimes you might seem to be a teensy tiny, itsy bitsy, little bit aggressive when challenged.
Mea culpa. Ok, but I don't mind being challenged, I just don't like being maligned. Az's post looked more like attacks than challenges.
Ok, I haven't played nice with JJ. But he really is a hack. I'm not going to pretend to converse with someone who isn't conversing. He's a talking point. Chief I like. He reflects, he thinks. He may not stray far from the party line, but at least he thinks. He challenges me all the time. I don't evicerate him for personal attacks. He attacks my substance, and he brings facts and arguments. Rabby too. And I may try to poke holes in their arguments, and make fun of them when they run oft or stick to inconsistent positions. Which they do. Alot. I attack the propensity to cling to faulty arguments...if this is something like conversation, I respect those who converse, contemplate other arguments and amend their way of thinking if careful consideration of the other argument merits a change of thought. I have changed my thinking on many, many things because of our conservative friends...i'm damned if I'm going to pretend to honor the conversational rights of a partisan hack. Come into a conversation spinning administration talking points, and someone around here is going to call you on it.
^ and yeah, right again. Hilarious!
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 5:53:21 PM
Sarcastic goofing for laughs, not legitimate criticism, IMO. Don't go changing. Sick 'em Stink! Sick 'em!
Again, Stink my original comment is expressing my disdain of many who sit around spewing slanted facts in our faces and the effects that we as a culture reflect as a result of it.
Lol "and christ on a cruch" love that.
Sorry for the syntax problem. I wrote that in a rush. Once in awhile your foibles make me giggle too.
44, sure I understand your point about the big picture. Attaching simplistic slogans and catch phrases to explain complex issues I just distrust. Stockholder ranks are not just the holdings of the privileged for instance. Look at retirement plans.
If you think my post lacked integrity I think your being a bit off base there to accuse me of that. LGM brought up a good point about manipulation in the political arena and I found the two quotes that illustrated in my mind how common place it is these days. I didn't mean that either were outwardly deliberate at all. Just an observation about truth. If you don't see it that way well thats fine with me of course.
Is the spin or polarization tactics part of the problem or the solution? In my view it's the former.
Last edited: Friday, November 04, 2005 at 8:11:29 PM
Ok az, that's the position you are taking, and I'll take you at your word. Your post above makes sense now that you've explained the position. The first post seemed a bit...off base. But you never did really substantiate any of your claims...or counter mine. For those who are keeping score at home.
And by the way 44, that post up there is absolutely right on. You're starting to intimidate me...
Perhaps it's time to start giving this administration some kudos for their economic policies.
Kudos are due, right?
Deficit reduction -- a good thing.
Fiscal responsibility -- a good thing.
Belt tightening -- a good thing.
So, 'what are they cutting?' you ask...
"...cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, agriculture subsidies and child support enforcement. The House measure would allow states to impose premiums and co-payments on poor Medicaid recipients for the first time."
Uhhhhh....that's not so good.
But, 'I can swallow it', you say. 'I can live with those sacrifices for the overall good of the economy. I mean, look at the deficit. Look at the cost of war. Look at the costs of hurricane clean-up. We're all going to need to take some hits here.'
'By the way, what's the next budget item in front of the senate?', you ask.
Another $70 billion dollar tax cut for the rich.
Last edited: Saturday, November 05, 2005 at 7:52:12 AM
Get a rope.
Thanks republicans.
"Senate pushes "Apollo-style" plan on renewable energy."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/anwr.drilling.ap/index.html
Ah balls, who spiked my cornflakes.
44: I'm tired of your overblown hyperbole. "70 billion dollar tax cut for the rich". That isn't exactly how it works. The poor will be paid off with a $30 check, which they can spend on plastic shit of their choice at walmart.
I'm sick of the spin 44. You're just as extreme as the GOP. I claim the middle ground. I reject the extremes and those who haunt them. Your statement is an example of leftist extremism.
Right az?
rabbit: while you are waiting for a democratic messiah, the republicans are tearing the ass out of this country.
THEY ARE TEARING OUR ASS OUT!!!
sorry for the hyperbole. They are'nt exactly tearing our ass out. Let me wander back over to the center...
From my perspective, the policies of the GOP do not reflect....no...THEY ARE TEARING AT OUR ASS! THEY ARE GONNA RIP IT OUT AND SELL IT!
Last edited: Saturday, November 05, 2005 at 10:57:39 AM
Ouch. I was chased down and bitten in the ass by a Republican dog when I was 10.
Speaking of tax cuts... Here's what the cuts did for those fifths I've been using-
I think they gave my left cheek to some rich guy... :S
(crickets)
I love crickets...
On the oil issue with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge- how much help would that oil be?
(I snapped this from a link on the page Tally linked above)
The teensy weensy brown line at the bottom is the projected production from ANWR. There isn't enough there to make a real difference, but it give GWs oily friends more sales... And this from my Senator-
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, who led the effort to continue the ban, called drilling in the refuge a gimmick that will have little impact on oil or gasoline prices, or U.S. Energy security.
"Using backdoor tactics to destroy America's last great wild frontier will not solve our nation's energy problems and will do nothing to lower skyrocketing gas prices," Cantwell argued.
: :
Edit comment:
@ Prof, you couldnt have said it better! That is why I voted for Nader in 2000. He wanted to eliminate "soft" monies totally. I have lost almost all faith in the system which is so corrupt that I lose sleep at night. Dems an Republicans included.
Here's a democratic kick to the republican grill.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/05.html#a5727
The curtain has been pulled back, turkeys. Bush is done.
Prof sayeth:
Granted, we all have to be self-serving to a degree, but when our decisions affect millions, I would think those running the show, given their education/intelligence (mb not the same thing) and the gravity of their decisions would err on the side of generosity.
Self-serving to what degree?
The problem with the left right now is "superficial analysis...long on ascribing motive and short on allowing for good faith."
I watched the Brooks/Shields debate on News Hour. Ummmmm. I didn't see "Bobo gets rocked."
Shields talked about things "that we have not seen."
Like the 48-page report that Scooter Libby put together for Colin Powell before he went to the UN. Maybe Shields would like to see that report, but has he?
Nope. But that didn't stop Shields from citing it as evidence.
Brooks asked for evidence, Shields gave out hypotheticals.
Gee, I remember when it was guilty until proven innocent. Or is it the other way?
More importantly, Brooks had an interesting response to Shields surmises. (I gist because the transcript is not available until tomorrow.)
"If you want to condemn Bush for judging badly on the Iraq, that's one thing," Brooks said.
"But if you want to say he lied us into war, that's Joe McCarthy territory. That is a most heinous charge and if you're going to make that, you'd better have solid evidence"
Self-serving. Who is self-serving?
Due process?
Forget the good faith part. Throw the good faith part out completely.
Without good faith, if you make superficial analysis and wild motives, then all you have left is due process.
And talking points? Lord. The joke is that Fitzgerald may bring more charges. And not just to Karl Rove. We may have Tim Russert in jail before all this is over. (Keep in mind that the Big Show hasn't even started yet with the Federal Trial. We are going to get testimony from LOTS of people.)
No one has been charged except Libby. Again, no one was charged with outing Valerie Plame.
The joke is that Fitzgerald really may bring more charges and if he does then we will know.
Meanwhile, we get leads like this one from NPR's story on Bush's South American trip: "It looks like Bush's problems followed him to South America as questions about Rove outweighed questions about this trip at his news conference."
What!!!? A self-fulfilling prophesy? Yeah, the reporters brought the problems and called themselves "problems" as well? Oooooooooh boy.
Meanwhile, we get the CIA leaking like a bucket that Valerie "good with an AK47" Wilson might have shot up.
Item: Dana Priest of the Washington Post writes a front-page story on Wednesday headlined, CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons.
Pay close attention to the second sentence of the story: "The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents."
"Secret"! "Covert"!
So after the press and the Left make a meal of the allegation that people in the White House might have leaked the name of a covert operative, and after we find out that Plame was indeed not a covert operative under the law, the Washington Post — by its own admission — can print classified information that involves covert CIA activity?
Last edited: Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 1:40:16 PM
Did someone speak? Guess not....since nothing was said.
this is for my buddy chief:
aka nostradamus...
Last edited: Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 6:13:24 PM
I need help. I'm not able to comprehend this piece of material. It seems to be saying that there is no santa clause and that g w bush isn't the second coming. Oh uh! Uh oh! That means an existential crisis is building up, and that always makes my head feel all stingy. JJ, can you spin this one off for me so I can go back to picking daisys?
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
I mean, we all know this wasn't our lord, the right reverend jesus bush's fault. It was bad intelligence. Right chief? JJ? My heads feeling all stingy...don't let me down in my time of crisis. Spin, sacred hack, spin...
Ohhhh!
*JJ, raising his hand up high*
I'll take that one, Alex! For $1,000.
Who was the Senator who attended a closed hearing on Oct 2, 2002 and heard this from George Tenet from the CIA?
Regarding Senator Bayh's Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
* Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
* We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
* Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
* Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
* We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. Capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
* Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. Military action.
I have been invoked......
LOL
Sorry - have been traveling too damn much lately. I see I have a lot to catch up on.
Just read a great article - though I would share:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn06.html#
Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
November 6, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.
Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.
The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.
The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall... A firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.''
Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they'd won, they'd have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ''Perhaps,'' wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ''the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.'' There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ''an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.''
Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''
What to do? In Paris, while ''youths'' fired on the gendarmerie, burned down a gym and disrupted commuter trains, the French Cabinet split in two, as the ''minister for social cohesion'' (a Cabinet position I hope America never requires) and other colleagues distance themselves from the interior minister, the tough-talking Nicolas Sarkozy who dismissed the rioters as ''scum.'' President Chirac seems to have come down on the side of those who feel the scum's grievances need to be addressed. He called for ''a spirit of dialogue and respect.'' As is the way with the political class, they seem to see the riots as an excellent opportunity to scuttle Sarkozy's presidential ambitions rather than as a call to save the Republic.
A few years back I was criticized for a throwaway observation to the effect that ''I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark." But this is why. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that's less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.
If Chirac isn't exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren't doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They're seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the 'burbs gets you more ''respect'' from Chirac, they'll burn 'em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ''The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.'' Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
That is an interesting article, Chef.
One aside is how the spin-doctors are leaning/playing the story.
Awwwwww, I mean the left, the mediacrats, and -- watch out for some moonbats on the right as well!
The left's version: They are in the bad parts of town, underprivileged, rioting out of hopelessness.
The mediacrat version: They are in the bad parts of town, underprivileged, rioting out of hopelessness. (hmmm, looks the same?)
The right's version: It's those commies...erp...correction...Islamists in the bushes. They're out in the open now!
Mr. Steyn seems to have better perspective, doesn't he? I think he truly does. But, hey, it's just a talking point. Pay no attention to moi.
I'll have a burger, fries, and a Coke, Chef. Please.
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 8:21:17 AM
Hmmm, post seems to have disappeared.
Sry, Chef. I will try to repeat.
Don't set the dry yard on fire while grilling out....
Did I say I'll have a Coke, burger, and fries yet? Oh, yeah, did.
Wait! I remember!
I have a follow-up question!:
Who said this?:
"We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. Intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon...."
Ding! Ding! The Daily Double!
For an additional $1,000,000,000 (about the cost of one day of pre-war CIA intelligence), who quoted it on a recent news talk show? To whom was it said? Who fell out on the floor laughing over the whole thing? (Hint: that would be me.)
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 8:31:47 AM
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?