Cowards Hide In Order To Cut and Run

Posted by Karen at December 19, 2005 08:46 AM

Now I can GET behind a good smokeout.

Needed: Peace Pipe to pick apart the pickled peckers.

There's a great, well-written, longish article/diary on assessing districts in the Congressional House races. Some good educational material on what's involved for those not familiar with the process.

Starting with the Districts: a model for House Targeting
by kid oakland
Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:11:04 PM EST

"It's not often that I find myself taking the moderate position," says Joshua Grossman, SF Bay Area-based political demographer and founder of the congressional vote tracking website ProgressivePunch.org..."but when it comes to House targeting , you can call me a raging moderate."
~snip~
Joshua's middle path comes out of his background as a political demographer and consultant. His website, Progressive Punch.org is a well-known online resource for evaluating congressional voting records using a progressive yardstick. At the core of Joshua's analysis is this precept: the first factor to look at when we consider the pool of races to consider for targeting is the districts themselves...

First, I'd like to examine the nuts and bolts of Joshua's analysis.

Second, I'd like to break down why that analysis is significant and how it relates to so many of the discussions we've had here in the netroots: about targeting vulnerable Republicans, about the development of local opposition blogs, and about the widely-shared netroots vision of taking our country back by fighting in every state.

read more here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/18/15115/759

"Gonzalez said he had begun meeting with members of Congress on the Bush administration's view that Congress' authorization of the use of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ample authorization for the surveillance.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," Gonzales said."

So, this is the justification Bush plans to make this morning for his illegal spying- that an authorization to use military force after Sept 11 allowed spying on American citizens.
There's just one problem with that- the US military is NEVER supposed to use the military against American citizens= not even at Waco, and certainly not in any war which the president has declared on his own against an imaginary concept. And, the agency that has conducted the surveillance isn't a military agency. It's bull hockey, and they know it.
I wonder if the American people will swallow this garbage whole , just like they usually do swallow everything that comes out of this president's lying mouth?
Guess time will tell.

Today we are working on our DC January 7 event, which will be at Busboys and Poets. We are inviting our disenfranchised legislator, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and several key pundits and, of course, the media, to join us for some of Andy Shallal's famous catfish and hummous.

We are also inviting any VOTING Members of Congress who may be in town, getting ready for the Alito hearings, or preparing documents for a variety of congressional acts...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence/
Gonzales Says Congress Authorized Spying
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON - Responding to a congressional uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that a secret domestic surveillance program had yielded intelligence results that would not have been available otherwise in the war on terror.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had essentially given President Bush the authority for domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gonzales said he had begun meeting with members of Congress on the Bush administration's view that Congress' authorization of the use of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ample authorization for the surveillance.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," Gonzales said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gonzales said Congress' action after Sept. 11 essentially "does give permission for the president of the United States to engage in this kind of very limited, targeted electronic surveillance against our enemy."

[Gee... I don't think that's what Congress authorized at all.... implicitly or explicitly.... Should come under the heading of: "I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" I wonder if senators and reps will ever wake up to the fact that if they give The Cretin an inch, he'll take a mile... or ten. And, will someone PLEASE tell us just WHO these unidentified "enemies" are?!? It seems to me we're fighting ghostly apparitions in this "war on terror"!!! No one has identified or named these alleged "enemies"! Well, except for Osama Been Forgotten... who is still... free....]

Alberto Gonzalez really stepped on his own Johnson this morning. This guy's actually trying to sell that the Iraq War Resolution authorized the President to break the law and spy on American citizens without legal process.

Wrong.

And it's just gonna get bigger now.

Enjoy the combustion of the most corrupt administration in our nation's history.

My God. He looks like Humphrey Bogart in the Caine Mutiny talking about his strawberries being stolen. I can't help but believe that all of America can see that on his face. This is the most paranoid person every to occupy the White House. Far more paranoid than Richard Nixon. The man is mentally ill.

Posted by: VictoriaEllen at December 19, 2005 10:44 AM

Check out Ellen Beth's blog today about Gonzales & our military dictatorship....
http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

...and feel free to vote for Democrat of the Year while you're there. As Ellen Beth says...there are no rules for voting and do as we do in Chicago - vote early and often. (Hey Ellen - are ya going to use Diebold to tally the results...)

And in the meantime, the Bush administration is working on how to spread our war for democracy into this hemisphere because of the natural gas deposits in Bolivia...

And guess what, it's outsourced to private contractors so that Congress has no oversight capability.

http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/12/19/6222/5410/displaystory//

Check out Ellen Beth's blog today about Gonzales & our military dictatorship....
http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

(and feel free to vote for Democrat of the Year while you're there. As Ellen Beth says...there are no rules for voting and do as we do in Chicago - vote early and often. (Hey Ellen - are ya going to use Diebolds to tally the results...)

Posted by: madame defarge at December 19, 2005 10:49 AM

feel free to vote for Dick Bell!! often!

biased in the behemoth,

William Rivers Pitt: Radical Militant Librarians and Other Dire Threats
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Z.shtml
William Rivers Pitt writes: In my opinion, we need to fight, resist, refuse to subsidize Washington in every way, and we must immediately begin impeachment proceedings against this president, not only because he has clearly earned impeachment, but in order to revive a national awareness of the intent of the Founding Fathers to circumscribe centralized state power, and their vision of a free and peaceful Republic.

Letters from Citizens: (Seattle Times)

On the eve of a new revelation that the Bush administration overstepped its powers even under the Patriot Act ["Bush reportedly authorized NSA to spy on Americans," Times, News, Dec. 16], our elected representatives are debating whether to permanently dilute our domestic freedoms and rights.

George Bush apparently decided it was OK for the government to wire-tap Americans without our knowledge after 9/11, even beyond the authority given the government by the original Patriot Act.

The key quality of Machiavellian leaders is their belief that their end goal always justifies whatever means they choose to accomplish the goal — e.g., "burn the village to save it." This administration has become more Machiavellian than "The Prince," to whom the term first applied. It insists on Draconian laws (Patriot Act) empowering its anti-democratic methods, then secretly overreaches even those laws.

Given all we now know about this administration, are we supposed to trust that it will not abuse our American rights and freedoms?

Larry - Port Townsend

Liberty or deaf

If the National Security Agency is allowed to spy on American citizens, then we've already lost everything worth protecting.

Daniel - Seattle

The last refuge

Thank you, senators! You have refused to listen to insanity, choosing instead the will of the American public!

Thank you for voting down this administration's illegal denial of the privacy and rights of the citizens of the United States. Do not buy into the scare tactics used to extend the suppression of our rights.

Tyranny always attempts to control the people with fear and scare tactics. Do not be afraid.

— Cheryl -Lake Stevens

There were also two pro-government letters, but I admit I censored them. Those folks already have FOX news on their side, and the Seattle Times is conservative.

creepy

When asked why he didn't go throught he appropriate courts to seek legal cover, Bush said the danger posed by terrorism and the speed at which the government must move to prevent attacks required quicker action. Bush also said he had the legal authority to do so without the courts.

``I swore to uphold the laws,'' Bush said. ``Do I have the legal authority to do this? The answer is absolutely.''

(http://www.theguardian.co.uk)

WHY isn't John Conyers name added to Ellen Beth's roster of nominees?

And it's one-two-three
what are we fightin' for?
Don't tell me I don't give a damn
Next stop is...

Rise in poll complaints troubles Iraq vote monitors

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Monday December 19, 2005
The Guardian

Suspected polling violations on voting day last week far exceeded the number in Iraq's first election in January, local and international monitors said yesterday.
On the deadline for filing complaints, the number of alleged violations which could swing results in the 275-seat parliament was "well into double figures", an accredited international election observer, who wished to remain anonymous, said.

In January there were only five of these "red" complaints, the observer added. Red complaints are alleged breaches serious enough to potentially hand a seat to a party or election bloc unfairly. The election commission has declined to say how many such complaints it has received, but several parties handed in dossiers listing breaches allegedly seen by their monitors.

Secular Arab parties have accused the Shia religious bloc, which dominates the current government, of intimidating voters in Baghdad and many southern cities.

The Iraqi National List, headed by the former prime minister Ayad Allawi, filed more than 60 complaints yesterday. They alleged that at several polling stations policemen, national guard troops, or men from the major crimes unit were chanting for the Shia religious list, known as 555.

At the Sharqia high school in central Baghdad, which was used as a polling station, a senior election official was said to have asked voters if they were going to vote for 555. Unless they said yes, they were not given ballot papers.

A source close to Mr Allawi's campaign said that in one Baghdad polling station "around 600 men, some with walkie-talkies and purple ink on their fingers showing they had already voted, forced their way in. When the manager tried to stop them asking for ballot papers, they threatened to put him in a car boot and drive him away ... He let them in."

He declined to be identified, citing the fact that an Allawi candidate and five campaign workers were murdered before the poll. All complaints have to be signed by a witness, which created risks, he said.

Complaints from the cities of Dohuk and Kirkuk against the two large Kurdish parties are also said to be numerous.

Hamid Mousa, the Iraq Communist party's general secretary, which is allied with Mr Allawi, said: "The election commission is weak. Some members are unwilling to issue judgments against major parties. Others are biased in favour of a particular party. The violations on Thursday were much bigger than in January. Government forces, like the police and army, didn't interfere so openly then."

The need to resolve complaints is the main reason why it will take two weeks to announce the results, officials say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1670522,00.html

and finally, David Sirota from Huffpo:

12.18.2005
The Most Important Question of All in Bush's Domestic Spying Scandal

In the last 72 hours since the revelation that President Bush ordered illegal domestic surveillance operations, we have seen how the Republican spin machine has mastered the art of turning any and all controversies into questions of national security. You know the drill: those who are criticizing Bush's orders are billed as weak, soft on national security, or against domestic efforts to stop terrorism.

Meanwhile, Bush is portrayed as the tough fighter of terrorism, willing to make the tough choices to defend America's national security. In short, his crimes are portrayed as badges of honor.

There's just one problem: this isn't a question of whether America supports domestic surveillance operations against terrorists or not. This is a question of whether America supports those operations without requiring a warrant.

The truth is, domestic surveillance operations happen all the time. They are such a part of our culture, they are a regular topic of television shows and movies (think Serpico or Stakeout). But they are also governed by the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, which explicitly protects citizens against "unreasonable search and seizures" and requires the executive branch to obtain a warrant from the objective judiciary branch in order to do surveillance operations.

So the question reporters should be asking the White House isn't why the president thinks there should be domestic efforts to track and stop terrorists. The vast majority of Americans think that. The question reporters should be asking is "Why did the President order domestic surveillance operations without obtaining constitutionally-required warrants?" That is behavior that most Americans who believe in the Constitution likely do not support at all.

Make no mistake about it - this is an especially poignant question considering that, under the Patriot Act's weakened standards, the government can now circumvent the traditional (and more rigorous) judicial system and obtain a warrant directly from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Remember, this is a court almost completely skewed in favor of the government. As Slate Magazine correctly noted, getting a warrant from that judge requires "no need for evidence or probable cause" and the judge has almost no authority to reject the government's request for a warrant, unless the government's request are extraordinarily outlandish. It is why, as Josh Marshall reports, the government's own data shows that "in a quarter century, the FISA Court has rejected four government applications for warrants." It is also why Members of Congress of both parties have tried to repeal the Patriot Act sections that allow the administration to use FISA warrants for domestic surveillance.

In his defense, the President has tried to deflect attention by repeatedly saying he needed to order these operations to protect Americans. Fine – but it still doesn't answer the real question. If the surveillance operations he ordered were so crucial and so important to protecting our country, how come he didn't get a warrant? Surely something so critical to our security would have easily elicited a warrant from a FISA court already inclined to issue warrants in the first place, right?

And that gets us right back to the most important question: why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.

This is no conspiracy theory - all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know.

Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators." Then, just a few months ago, the Times reported that the FBI "has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups." And just this past week, NBC News obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of anti-war peace groups. The report noted that the administration had monitored 1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.

These are exactly the kind of surveillance operations even a government-tilted FISA court would reject, and it raises yet more questions: Are these anti-war peace groups the targets of Bush's warrantless, illegal surveillance operations? Who else has the President been targeting? Has it been his partisan political enemies a la Richard Nixon? Or has he been invading the privacy of unsuspecting citizens in broad sweeps with no probable cause at all?

The answers to these questions will get us away from the silly and partisan "strong on national security" vs. "weak on national security" and get us to the real questions at hand. This controversy has to do with whether America believes in the Constitution's separation of powers between an executive and a judicial branch – the separation that quite literally differentiates our form of government from any old dictatorship, where when the monarch snaps his fingers, the secret police immediately target the unsuspecting citizen. That's about as un-American as you get – and that's why we need to know whether those who hold high office in this country think they can turn our democracy into their autocracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-most-important-questi_b_12499.html

How is it that you all continue to ignore the verifiable fact that when taxes on capital are cut - what you term tax cuts for the rich - government revenue increases?

This is demonstrated again and again by the simple real numbers. When taxes on capital are cut, investments are more successful and prominant, jobs are created, and the standard of living for the lower classes is raised yet again.

The word 'rich' is a purposefully vague term, that I guarantee none of you can define. You use it because most people will reflexively think 'that's not me.' In reality, most of the tax cuts put in place in the last five years of Republican rule benefit anyone who owns stock, real estate or other capital investments. That includes more than 50% of the nation's households! If that many people are 'rich,' your calls for state-enforced wealth redistribution seem even more ridiculous than normal!

Long term capital gains was cut from nearly 30% to 15% several years ago. The recent round simply extended that cut past its previous deadline. I know that some of you own stock, and most of you probably own real estate. Therefore, you are the 'rich' that you love to attack. In fact, I recently read a liberal columnist who claimed only rich people read blogs.

The truth is that while there are large differences in income between the richest and poorest Americans, our system of classically liberal (what you term neo-liberal or neo-conservative) economics allowed us to become the richest country in the world. Our poorest citizens are materially much better off than the vast majority of the world. And when jobs leave our soil and go to China and India they will increase the standard of living there AND here!

The other truth is that every effort to redistribute wealth unnaturally through state mechanisms has failed. You erroneously believe that the Scandinavian states prove your utopian vision could work.

Do your homework. Norway creates a materially wealthy society based almost entirely on the fact that it has an abundance of oil in its oceanic territory. They also enjoy a hearty work-ethic and culture that is absent in other nations. (Also, don't you people hate the extractive oil industry?) Sweden, another of your imagined egalitarian utopias, is home to the founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad, the richest man in the world.

Check out Sweden's tax rates, http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____3927.aspx, they are comparable to those that were in place before the Reps cut taxes. Did we live in a socialist uptopia before 2000?

When Milton Friedman visited Sweden a socialist told him "there is almost no poverty among the Swedish people." Friedman replied that there was almost no poverty among Swedish-Americans! Perhaps it has more to do with the culture and work ethic of the Swedish people than a forced wealth redistribution system.

Taxing the 'rich' does not solve poverty. Getting people to rely on themselves instead of a lumbering bureacracy does.

Wake up and smell the inexpensive and delicious corporate coffee. The 20th century gave the world ample laboratories for planned economies and they all failed. You lost. Marx himself saw that capitalism was the inevitable evolutionary stage after imperial agriculture. When and if humans are ever ready to move beyond capitalism it will happen naturally. Almost without us thinking about it, and certainly with out the zealous ideologues of the left. Keeping the successful from succeeding hurts us all by robbing the world of the freedom to progress.

When truly rich people (and I mean to use the Forbes definition of an income of 1 million dollars a year) are able to invest and create as they see fit, we are all rewarded with the fruits of plenty and advancement.

You 'progressives' hate progress. You want to keep the developing world from developing and becoming industrial consumers, you don't want to fight facsist Arab nationalists who want to destroy western democracy and capitalism, you hate science and fear technology - paying attention only to alarmist ideologues who are jokes among their peer review collegues - and you try to enforce an unnatural equality that will lower our collective standard of living in the name of 'fairness.'

A little background here on Gregorscoff

http://beerpostulate.blogspot.com/2005/09/welcome-to-beer-postulate.html

Also look for his comment on this blog:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/12/dc-killings-spoil-police-holiday-plans.html

Pentagon Spying on Americans in US and Abroad
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905I.shtml
Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, is a three-year-old agency whose size and budget remain secret. It has grown from an agency that coordinated policy and oversaw the counterintelligence activities of units within the military services and Pentagon agencies to an analytic and operational organization with nine directorates and ever-widening authority.

Congress Pushes Back, Hard, against Bush
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905J.shtml
From a standoff over the Patriot Act to pushback from Capitol Hill on the treatment of detainees, secret prisons abroad, and government eavesdropping at home, tensions between the Bush White House and the Republican-controlled Congress have never been more exposed.

--a friend asks, in their attempts to be candid, what are they hiding?

Oh boy, Gregorscoff, did you come to the wrong place!

Have at him, DCPers.

Me first: We are not rich and we did pay higher taxes under Clinton than we do now. Whoopee.
Under the higher tax structure we also had hope for public education, public support of arts and cultural institutions, healthcare for poor children and the elderly.

It's people like you who split this cpuntry down the middle, grabbing the goods and services for yourself who make it possible for poverty's growth. The third world is NOT getting any of this trickle-down, nor are my neighbors who are struggling more than ever.

And what happens when the spendthrift government we have now continues war and expands spending for corporate welfare, borrowing from China endlessly, and the whole thing crashes down?

What happens when China and India decide they want all the goodies too, including SUVs? Where does the oil come from?

Gregor, we progressives do believe in sharing; we also believe that the trickledown is not really progress; it is selfishness at a fundamental level.

Enjoy your goods and services and pay no attention to those hungry displaced children from New Orleans. They probably don't deserve your help.

Gregorscoff

Check this out.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Here is an alternative economics lesson (after having read the "supply side" rhetoric above, which does not address the role of petrodollars & profit).

I own stock, I own real estate and I am making 40 percent less than under Clinton. & I have had no tax cuts under Bush. Like many Americans with stocks, they are mutual funds mostly in retirement & I don't benefit under Bush. My tax benefit from buying a house happened in the first years when I was paying off interest, and that was under Clinton. Under Bush, I work 30% more, have a longer commute, and as I said before, earn 40% less.

Right on Karen

The "trickle down" theory also doesn't work - we tried it under Reagan.

Gregorscoff:

Thanks for the commentary. While we do not agree on major principles of your argument, which does not include the fact that there is still a wide and growing wider gap between the rich and working class of this country, you're still entitled to your opinion on this site.

Let's put it this way. The income gap between the upper and lower classes of this country was breachable thirty years ago. That gap has now become a chasm. Where it was once a difference (let's use height) the size of a three-story building, it is now the height from the sea floor to the top of Everest.

Your argument against applying the principle of "fairness" in this day and age simply does not hold water. In a country whose own citizens cannot access the very opportunities that are offshored, and then this same group vilified with claims that this is a re-distribution of wealth, cruelly misses the point of why this country was originally created.

There was a time when equal opportunity for all meant something. In the minds of all progressives, that means opportunity for all. Not handouts. But opportunities. Education, health care and opportunity to move out of one's social standing is not solely a party principle. It is a human obligation. Particularly when the nation has means.

Its also disengenuous to use the example of Scandinavia when providing the arguments against what amounts to "tax cuts for the rich" who have disposable income to invest versus taxes for everyone else, and punitive measures against those who can least afford bare necessities. You can't apply the European model of taxation when there is a specific class structure inherent to most European countries that does NOT allow mobility, versus ours, which purportedly DOES.

The message and argument isn't Scandinavia. It is Katrina.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Big Brother Bush: President Steps toward Police State
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905L.shtml
Without a serious leap of imagination, particularly with the list of those under surveillance not available to anyone outside the NSA and the Pentagon, it is also possible to project that political critics of the Bush administration could end up among those being tracked. The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national security doesn't wash; that is the language of a police state.

The Kemp-Roth Tax Cut was always intended to bring down the income tax rate for the top two percent. Those are the rich. This started under Reagan with David Stockman. The supply siders are not to be trusted. They use populist rhetoric by talking about "middle class tax cuts." It's a lie and conceals their goal of reducing taxes on the wealthy, which is not politically acceptable to be up front about.

They think that cutting tax rates alone will grow the Gross Domestic Product and balance the budget and this has never happened, no matter what the Wall Street Journal says.

Reaganomics rewarmed, except in Reagan era we had double digit inflation. He said we would produce our way out of inflation. & we didn't. Supply-side economics is a gift to the rich.

"Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us; And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this Realm:

To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity;

and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs."

[snip]

Proclamation, by The King, for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition
King George III
August 23, 1775

Paul Krugman of MIT called supply-side economics "Peddling Prosperity" and dismissed it as being unworthy of serious economists in a 1994 book written for the general audience.

Since Krugman's early work was in international currency areas, the very theory for which Mundell (guru for Reagan) received his Nobel Prize, his criticism was drawn in specifically sharp terms.

These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply-side economics does not work.

Supply-side defenders counter that the theory was never designed to consider government spending, and therefore cannot be blamed for this outcome. They also counter that tax revenues and the economy grew under supply-side policy, as predicted.

(from Wikipedia & don't worry - I read the thing, including economic history of US & predictions from pro-supply side people).

Gregorscoff:

I'd also like to point out the fallacies in your argument from the business persons standpoint. And we have many small business owners on this site.

First, under the Bush administration and Republican controlled congress small businesses have seen cutbacks in services allowed to them.

In the meantime, big businesses are exporting their jobs overseas and using slave labor. And most people are having to replace these jobs with lower wage paying positions.

Some are then looking to start their own business. It is the American dream, right?

Well, under this administration, loans to small business owners have been cut, and services to help people with the start-up of small business has been cut as well.

Like everyone has said already, trickle down econmics hurts 99% of Americans. And since America was created for "We the People" and not created for "We the Corporation, CEO's, and Monopolies", then all of these policies enacted by the neoCONs and their supporting Republicans are harmful to WE THE PEOPLE!

Fe
sounds familiar

wise words from Robert Reich:

The federal government, remember, is deep in the red. Next year's deficit is already approaching a record $500 billion. The heart of George W. Bush's domestic policy is his $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, which, as we know by now, go mostly to wealthy families. No reputable economist believes they will stimulate the economy, for the obvious reason that rich families already spend what they want to spend. That's the very definition of being rich. The only conceivable justification for these tax cuts goes under the rubric of "supply-side economics." The theory is that the rich will invest the extra money they get from the tax cuts in new factories and equipment, thereby growing the American economy. The fallacy here is that we're in a global economy, and the money the rich save by not paying taxes is as likely to go to East Asia or Europe in search of high returns as it is to America.

The only asset that's truly American, and likely to stay right here, is our people. I'm referring specifically to their capacity to be productive in the future because they have the education and knowledge they need. This is why skimping on our schools is bad, not just for the kids who now get stuck in larger classrooms with fewer teachers but also for the future of the American economy.

I'm not one to get bent out of shape about deficits, especially when the economy has so much underutilized capacity. But it makes absolutely no sense to give tax benefits to people at the top and simultaneously fail to fund our schools. State and local budgets are tight mainly because the economy is still struggling to break out of recession, and because states and cities don't have adequate revenues. Poor districts are especially strapped because their own tax bases have shriveled. Federal funding for poor schools needs to be dramatically expanded. The No Child Left Behind Act requires a lot more money behind it.

It's a simple lesson the Bush administration and the Republican Congress should have learned by now: The real supply side lies not with financial capital but with human capital.

Look!
Bush mixed up the names of Saddam and Bin Laden in his news conference today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/ts_nm/bush_names_dc

Where did Gregorscoff to?

"How is it that you all continue to ignore the verifiable fact that when taxes on capital are cut - what you term tax cuts for the rich - government revenue increases?

This is demonstrated again and again by the simple real numbers. When taxes on capital are cut, investments are more successful and prominant, jobs are created, and the standard of living for the lower classes is raised yet again."

Your alleged real numbers don't tell the whole story, and can easily manipulated.

Successful investments follow the identification of legitimate opportunity, not a mere reduction of personal or investment tax rates. No investment in a bad idea is made better by a lower tax rate. Any investment in a good business idea will pay off handsomely at a time of fair tax rates, like during the Clinton Era.

Even though marginal and investment tax rates are lower today than they were in Clinton era, do venture capital outlays even approach the level of the 1990s? No.

And tax rates themselves don't tell the whole story. The upper-middle class and wealthy have any number of excellent ways to avoid paying taxes, through various tax shelters, trusts, and audit-proof business deductions.

The super-wealthy already enjoy unfair advantages in our society. Consider our President. A former degenerate, likely suffering from pre-senile dementa due to long-term drug and alcohol abuse, can fail in business after business, and still be bailed out by daddy's and grandfather's money, and exploit family name, reputation, and resources to achieve positions in American society that his mental, emotional and intellectual achivements do not warrant. He is the Harriet Miers of Presidents. If there ever was an example of wealth totally skewing the balance here in American, George W. Bush is it.

Gregorscoff --

I have never read a post so chock-full of unverified statistics, sweepingly vague generalizations, and just plain meaningless narrative...

Let's start here:

"How is it that you all continue to ignore the verifiable fact that when taxes on capital are cut - what you term tax cuts for the rich - government revenue increases?"

Perhaps you could articulate how it is that when taxes - the only form of government revenue - are cut, government revenue increases... I'd be interested in hearing that.

Secondarily, if government revenue has increased under these tax cuts, then why are we running a record deficit? Has spending increased so vastly under Republican leadership that they not only destroyed the surplus, but ate the commensurate revenue increase? Help me out, here...

Indefensible statement #2:

"This is demonstrated again and again by the simple real numbers. When taxes on capital are cut, investments are more successful and prominant, jobs are created, and the standard of living for the lower classes is raised yet again."

Well, Gregordear... clearly, as has been stated by everyone from Alan Greenspan to half of Congress, the standard of living for the lower classes not only hasn't been raised, it has substantially lowered. This can be seen in two actual facts. One, the number of Americans living below the 'poverty' line, has increased sharply since 2000. Two, the income disparity between the upper class and the lower class has also increased sharply during this time period.

It's worth noting though, that in terms of increased wealth accumulation, Exxon did have a record breaking year.

There's more I could say here, but I have to get back to my job as a mindless state drone.

But before I go...I always love hearing the "our poorest people are still better off than most of the world" argument. So, the standard for the upper class is to accumulate as much wealth as possible, and pay as little taxes as possible - and the standard for the lower class is to surpass the quality of life in such places as Bangladesh. Okey dokey.

In short Gregor, you're going to have to do a better job next time of backing up your philosophical treatise. This one isn't gonna cut it.

Matthew Carnicelli!!!!

BRAVO! BRAVO!

BRAVISIMMO!

Case closed.

(the Harriet Miers of presidents! bwahahaha!!!)

Matt!! Yeah, baby!

Does Bush not know that members of the senate represent states, not cities?

Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — without naming them — to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. “I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to explain why these cities are safer” without the extension, he said.

Senatard

Posted by: not my president at December 19, 2005 02:10 PM

I heard it live in the car! I wondered IF anyone would follow up on that. Hmmm...accidental slip or intentional?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/ts_nm/budget_congress_dc

House approves $39.7 bln spending cuts
By Richard Cowan Mon Dec 19, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Monday narrowly voted to cut $39.7 billion from federal spending over five years, including health care and other social welfare, as part of a conservative push to contain these growing programs.

By a vote of 212-206, the House, at the end of a rare overnight session, approved the spending cuts, which were opposed by Democrats.

"We have a plan to reform the government and achieve savings," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican.

In separate legislation, the House also approved a 1 percent reduction in spending this fiscal year for all federal programs, except for the Veterans Administration, to save an additional $8 billion.

The five-year budget bill, which was trimmed from the nearly $50 billion in savings approved by the House last month, is expected to be debated by the Senate this week.

Democrats criticized spending cuts to student loans, child care and other programs. Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, the senior Budget Committee Democrat, complained that Republicans were negotiating last-minute deals to help medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers, while maintaining reductions in some programs for the poor.

Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record), a Texas Democrat, said, "This bill under the Republican leadership makes Scrooge look like a philanthropist."

A large chunk of the spending cuts, about $11.2 billion over five years, would come from Medicare and Medicaid, the health-care programs for the elderly and poor.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning economic analysis group, said the bill would raise co-payments for many Medicaid beneficiaries, "as well as the premiums they can be charged to enroll in Medicaid in the first place."

Additional savings would come in student loan programs, which Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, called "the biggest cuts to student aid programs ever."

The spending-cut bill also would make a significant change to U.S. trade policy.

If enacted, it would repeal a trade law known as the "Byrd amendment" that allows the government to distribute some duties it collects on foreign goods to U.S. companies involved in trade disputes with foreign competitors.

Under a compromise, the law, which has been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, would be repealed after a two-year grace period.

American companies have collected more than $1 billion since 2000 under this law.

Throughout this year, the Republican-led Congress has been pushing some form of spending reductions, which they said were necessary in light of huge U.S. budget deficits and unexpected hurricane clean-up and rebuilding costs.

The $39.7 billion in savings would be dwarfed, however, by an estimated $14 trillion the government is expected to spend over the next five years under a Republican budget plan approved last April.

Democrats argued that the spending cuts were falling disproportionately on the poor as Republicans also were pushing through Congress tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Some of those Democrats have acknowledged the need to control the growth of these federal programs, a problem that will only get worse as baby-boomers retire and enroll in federal programs such as Medicare. But they argued that long-term reforms, not stop-gap spending cuts, were necessary.

House Republicans abandoned earlier attempts to cut food stamps by about $700 million. The program helps the poor buy groceries.

The government would gain $3.6 billion in revenues over five years by raising premiums companies would pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

Way off topic, but all politics is local. I live in the sixth district and am sickened by what the DCCC is doing. People wonder why Democrats can't seem to get their act together. In my view, it is because the leadership is making decisions with its head up its as*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet16.html

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog posts.

Check out who would benefit from the proposed tax cuts...! Corporations (again)!

Gregorscoff ~ If America has it so good with the wealthy getting all the tax breaks and more money to spend, why is it that when it comes to medical care that the infant mortality rate in this country is only on par with third world infant mortality rates? Why is it the retired and poor have their Medicare and Medicaid cut... so that the insurance companies who cover the prescription drug costs reap the benefit of the current plan and have to pay the insurance premiums on already tight budgets (if senior citizens and those on Medicare sign up for the extra plan that's so confusing that no one can understand it)? Why is it that people in other countries have better health care than Americans in countries with socialized medicine?

"There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward," Bush said. "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said earlier on Monday the U.S. Congress' authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, attacks also gave Bush the right to order the eavesdropping.

Bush said the program had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but gave no details.

"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens," he declared.

Bush noted that he had sworn to uphold the law. "Do I have the legal authority to do this? The answer is ''absolutely''."

On Iraq, Bush pointed to the country's election last Thursday as a sign of progress in the war, which is costing taxpayers $6 billion a month and in which more than 2,100 U.S. troops have died.

"It wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq," he said. "It was the right decision to make. I think that there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions made on the ground in Iraq ... History will judge."

Important news!

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_plan_sharp_rebuke_of_prewar_1219.html

Still, no one answered the question: Did government revenues go up after the previous round of tax cuts?

I came here because I see the world of blogging to people you know you agree with as sort of silly. I used to be a Marxist in academia and I changed because I continually lost arguments with classical liberals and continually saw the intellectualy laziness of the left.

You speak in platitudes - 'equal opportunity,' availability of 'public' support. Where are the facts? You offer wishful thinking and pie in the sky.

"Under the higher tax structure we also had hope for public education, public support of arts and cultural institutions, healthcare for poor children and the elderly."

You say you want better education, but when vouchers come up you are wholesale against them. Tell me, where did the Clinton's send their daughter? Why? Better public education would come from cutting down the bureacracy and focusing on education, which vouchers demonstrably achieve.

If a 'cultural institution' is that important, people will pay for it themselves. NPR manages to stay afloat using volunteered dollars - as less than 1% of its funding comes from the Federal Government. How could we possibly agree on what constitues a 'cultural' expenditure in this 'multicultural' society?

The United States already has the best health care system in world. I agree, all people should be able to access it. However, the costs associated with health care are not necessarily intrinsic. They come from the incredibly high insurance and regulatory hurdles that medical companies face. (It has been argued for instance that if Aspirin were developed today, no pharmacuetical corporation would touch it because of the regulatory and litigious nightmare it would create). When the Republicans tried to limit medical tort payouts, you were up in arms. As for 'social medicine' check with an immigrant from the former USSR on the relative quality of 'guaranteed' health care.

"What happens when China and India decide they want all the goodies too, including SUVs?"

We celebrate! That will provide countless jobs and stimulation for the products and services our economy is now focused on. Furthermore, the economic development of those states will increase their ability to mitigate pollution and protect more wild lands. Forests in the developed world are expanding. They are shrinking in the developing world because poor people, who have no access to infratructure, which is what the WB is trying to put an end to, collect and utilize forest products in an 'unsustainable' manner. The more argicultural and industrial technology we can set up and support in those states, the less they will destroy wilderness areas and attempt to cultivate marginal lands. Using WB/IMF funded biotech, fertilizer and pesticides saved a billion lives in the 20th century. Are you saying you value your own life more than that of the poor people of the global south?

"Where does the oil come from?"

The ground! And if we let the oil companies take the profits that they worked decades for, they will invest trillions of dollars in securing the next fuels. Why? Because they want to be energy companies 100, 200, years from now! As for the availability of oil, find me two petro-geologist who agree about how much retrievable oil is left. You cannot. Furthermore, if the oil companies are not taxed and regulated out of existence, they will develop newer and cleaner methods of extracting oil. As for global climate change, again, find me two climatologists who go on peer reviewd record that they KNOW 1) the extent to which climate change is anthropogenic 2) exactly what effects it will have, and 3) what we can do about it. The science is not sure! And guess what? I am in a university department that studies this! Command and control checks on development will serve to move our technological progress back rather than forward.

"Enjoy your goods and services and pay no attention to those hungry displaced children from New Orleans. They probably don't deserve your help."

No, as a matter of fact, many conservatives gave incredibly generously to relief efforts. Including your hated WalMart, who though they lost several stores and much revenue gave millions of dollars. The point is that we understand that private, voluntary organizations are not only better at helping the poor, but also more likely to be able to convince people to part with their money. There have been numerous studies showing that conservatives are actually more generous in the charitable giving. The other point is that the Federal Government failed. Hello! That is the point, if I am in a tight spot, I don't want to rely on a bureaucracy (and FEMA et al. are a bureaucracy, though headed by a political appointee, they operate mostly on the inertia that would be present in any administration). I want to rely on the countless groups such as the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army etc. that have a proven track record of success. I would also tend to believe that my state and local governments would have a better idea about how to clean up my area than someone in Washington.

'Not my president'. I am sorry that you don't make as much money now. But again, you failed to answer my question - if more government revenue is what you want, why do you refuse to acknowlege that tax cuts make government revenue go up?

As to your longer commute, I really fail to see what that has to do with tax policy. The only connection I can possibly draw is that a) the DC Metro area economy is expanding and thus we have an influx of workers and b) even with what is often regarded as the best heavey rail transit system in the world for a city of its size, most Dc area residents prefer the freedom of personal mobility.

"The "trickle down" theory also doesn't work - we tried it under Reagan."

Oh wait, and also under Clinton, who was a Blair/Giddens-esque Third Wayer who declared that the era of Big Government is over and free trade is necessary and good. And if you don't think it works, try to take a look at material well-being of the poorest Americans 30 years ago and compare it to 2005. Know how many households in the bottom 30% of income have cable? More than 60%.

"wide and growing wider gap between the rich and working class of this country, you're still entitled to your opinion on this site."

I did not and do not ignore that. I said: "while there are large differences in income between the richest and poorest Americans..." The fallacy of logic that you all seem unable to see is that there is not a finite pie. Economics is not a zero sum game. If the gap between the rich and the poor is widening that does NOT mean the poor are getting poorer. That means that they are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich. There is no limit to how wealthy our society can become, and how that can spread across the globe. Ever heard of Thomas Malthus? There is a reason that Malthusian is an epithet among reaonable intellectuals. He was wrong. There is no predictable limit to human ingenuity, provided it is given the freedom to operate. Therefore as the rich get richer, so do we. Do you like blogs? Do you like your iPod's? Those things are the result of many individuals operating in their own self-interest that becomes a mutal benefit for us all.

"Your argument against applying the principle of "fairness" in this day and age simply does not hold water."

My point is that global 'fairness' in the way that you demand it is a utopian pipe dream. Everytime a leader with flowery language about 'equality' and 'fairness' has gotten into power, murder, oppression, and ecnomic stagnation ensues. Even when it is applied in a democratic context, such as in some European examples, its success still relies on freetrade and markets, which all European governments support. If you were really concerned with improving the quality of life for everyone on earth, as I am, you would quit harping on how much the other guy has, and start looking for solutions that will bring 2/3 of the world out of poverty. Those solutions are 1) free trade 2) major lending institutions, 3) manufacturing jobs leaving the u.s. and going to developing countries. We will then have customers for the new technology and service jobs the children of the working class will take on.

"Not handouts. But opportunities. Education, health care and opportunity to move out of one's social standing is not solely a party principle. It is a human obligation. Particularly when the nation has means."

I agree! We disagree on methodology. I think that your methodology of command and control or worse yet, wishful thinking, has been resoundingly defeated in the laboratory of history. I think that the best way to raise the standard of living for the poor is to allow the most genuis and successful of us the freedom to continue growing human technology. When we tax the very people who create and make our society better, we do not use that money to help poor people. We use it to perpetuate a government bureaucracy. I think you imagine that when the super rich get tax cuts they go out and buy extra yatchs. In fact, most of them invest it in new ideas and people.

"You can't apply the European model of taxation when there is a specific class structure inherent to most European countries that does NOT allow mobility, versus ours, which purportedly DOES."

Purportedly? What? Class mobility is factually verifiable in American society. Furthermore, what you said proves my point. You can't apply a European tax model to our society. That is what LBJ tried to do, and it had dire consequences. We have now for 25 years been trying to undo that damage. I brought up Scandinavia because I have to constantly suffer arguments about how progressive taxation works based on the Scandinavian model. But indeed, my bad for preempting and argument instead of waiting for it.

"The message and argument isn't Scandinavia. It is Katrina."

Are you saying that you became a 'progressive' after Katrina? Are you saying that you were not aware there were poor people in this country before Katrina? Are you saying that you would risk stifling our economy to give more money to the FEMA you despise? What are you saying about Katrina. It was a hurricane. They happen. They have been happening for untold thousands of years, but only in the 20th century have we begun to amass huge populations in coastal areas. Katrina proves that we need more incentives to create wealth in that area. It does not mean that we need to raise taxes. It also means that the greatest indignity that we can do to a population is to give them barely enough to survive, but just enough so that they will have no incentive to go out and create wealth on their own. That is entitlment.

Still, no one answered the question: Did government revenues go up after the previous round of tax cuts?

ANSWER: NO

We are deficit spending.

As usual "creating wealth" is the answer to all, everything else is just a pipe dream, wishful thinking, pie-in-the-sky.

Methinks thou thinks too much...

Dream On.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Y.shtml
House Opens Way for Oil Drilling in Artic
The Associated Press

Monday 19 December 2005

House lawmakers opened the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one of their last acts of an all-night session Monday bringing their legislative year to a close.

The ANWR provision was attached to a major defense bill, forcing many opponents of oil and gas exploration in the barren northern Alaska range to vote for it. The bill, passed 308-106, also included money for hurricane relief and bird flu preventive measures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

????? Bird flu preventive measures????? Are they effing kidding?!? It's NOT a disease that's contagious from human to human, people can only get bird flu from handling droppings from sick birds, it's killed fewer than 100 people world wide, and they're FUNDING "bird flu preventive measures"?!?!?!?!?!? Can't people just simply wash their hands and do all the normal, healthy cleanliness things like they do to try to avoid getting regular flu? The chances of getting avian flu are slim to none unless they work on a chicken or turkey farm where birds are infected, and then they can't pass it on to other people anyway.... (One of the local TV stations was AGAIN talking about bird flu just a couple of days ago. How about they talk about the CRIMES of the Bu$hCo administration for a change?!?!?)

For the rest of the story, isn't it just like the neoCons to shove something like ANWR and Katrina funding into a necessary spending bill for the military? On principal, all the legislators should vote no on the danged military spending bill. If there's no money to fund the war, they have to cease and desist war and opt for peace, no? Why can't those fools in Congress vote on these things separately?!?

Are you saying that you became a 'progressive' after Katrina? Are you saying that you were not aware there were poor people in this country before Katrina?

I was not a progressive after Katrina. That is YOUR presumption, not mine. I've been a progressive for the last thirty years. And that includes the Clinton era.

Are you saying that you would risk stifling our economy to give more money to the FEMA you despise?

Who said I despised FEMA? Where did that presumption come from? Who said I would risk stifling our economy? Another presumption.

What are you saying about Katrina. It was a hurricane. They happen. They have been happening for untold thousands of years, but only in the 20th century have we begun to amass huge populations in coastal areas.

Hurricanes happen. But levees also break. ANd they broke on a community that by and large has been neglected. And that neglect, a product of thirty years of trickle down, is what you saw.

Katrina proves that we need more incentives to create wealth in that area.

That's right. And that's for everyone. And that means opportunities for everyone-blue collar and beyond. And that also meas education to improve chances for those who are not getting REACHED by supply-side economics.

"It does not mean that we need to raise taxes. "

Its means we need to bring taxes to a level that we can comfortably afford to maintain the level of services needed. Not in perpetuity, but until the goal is reached.

Kind of like Victory in Iraq. Know what I mean?

"It also means that the greatest indignity that we can do to a population is to give them barely enough to survive, but just enough so that they will have no incentive to go out and create wealth on their own. That is entitlment."

WRONG.

The use of the term Entitlement is a misnomer, especially when you have the worst funding of public education in the last twenty-five years over the federal government's watch. That includes tax cutting democrats as well as republicans. That is also a misnomer when, if you read everything everyone else posted about the effects of supply suide economics, that the gap between the very rich and very poor has grown. Alarmingly.

It also means that the level of "entitlement", such as incarceration programs, which is exactly the price of the kind of neglect these policies have had not only increases the likelihood that you will be paying a piper further down the line because it costs more to incarcerate than to educate a person, but YOUR CHILDREN will be paying it.

As a newly born Conservative, you must bristle at that...

"I came here because I see the world of blogging to people you know you agree with as sort of silly. I used to be a Marxist in academia and I changed because I continually lost arguments with classical liberals and continually saw the intellectualy laziness of the left."

Hmmm, I see...you have been a advocate for one failed ideology after another - Marxism and Voodoo economics. I'd choose the ideas that I subscribe to more wisely in the future...

We have an absolute right to know whether Bush, Rove, or others in this administration were spying,wire tapping, or intercepting any campaign communications of the John Kerry campaign under the facade of national security and the NSA.

There has got to be some way to find out if any communications, especially any overseas communications b/w the Kerry campaign and their European operations were intercepted.

If that is discovered its all over for this administration.

I know that Linda does not like to hear this, but it sounds more and more like Bush has revived Richard Nixon's tactics.

"I have never read a post so chock-full of unverified statistics, sweepingly vague generalizations, and just plain meaningless narrative..."

Wow! You should read more!

Well, human nature is that even if the gods of economics came down and proved once and for all that one or the other side was right or wrong, all on the offending side would stick to their guns. But still: a few answers and then I have to get back to living my life, you will never hear from me again and I will quit bothering to have a dialogue.

"ANSWER: NO
We are deficit spending." That is not what I asked. Revenues did go up. Look it up. I don't like deficit spending any more than you do. Its because we are at war with a facsist group that is hell bent on the destruction of the west, but that is another story.

"why is it that when it comes to medical care that the infant mortality rate in this country is only on par with third world infant mortality rates?"

What planet are you on? Last time I checked, and I don't want to become unanonymous, but I research things like that for a living, infant mortality rates in the U.S. were around 7/1000 live births. In the developing nations that you don't want to give WB loans to, they hover somewhere around 100-150.

"Why is it that people in other countries have better health care than Americans in countries with socialized medicine?"

I assume you mean to say that 'other coutnries' have better health care, not Americans who are living in other countries?

See this:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007382.

"Perhaps you could articulate how it is that when taxes - the only form of government revenue - are cut, government revenue increases... I'd be interested in hearing that."

Ok, again. When the upper tier of the economy pay less taxes, especially on capital, they make more money. There are different kinds of taxes, they range from capital tax, to income tax, to sales tax, to property tax etc. It is a fact that when the government cuts taxes on capital, other taxes go up. That is what the Republicans have done. I know that it is complicated, and on the surface, it sounds 'unfair.' But it is empirically demonstrable. Once more, tax cuts for the rich have been PROVEN by the real numbers, to make government revenues OVERALL go UP. Now, the government can (and likely will) turn around and spend at an even greater rate than its revenue went up, but it does not change the FACT that revenues (despite higher spending) have gone up since taxes for the 'ultra-rich' were cut.

"clearly, as has been stated by everyone from Alan Greenspan to half of Congress, the standard of living for the lower classes not only hasn't been raised, it has substantially lowered. This can be seen in two actual facts. One, the number of Americans living below the 'poverty' line, has increased sharply since 2000. Two, the income disparity between the upper class and the lower class has also increased sharply during this time period."

1) Sharply? from about 12 to about 12.7? Especially when you consider that it was much higher in the early 1980s. - Also, my point is that those who are below the poverty line in the U.S. enjoy a material wealth that is historically unprecedented:
- from wikipedia - the % who own:
color televisions, 91%
microwave ovens, 74%;
VCRs, 55%;
clothes dryers, 47%;
stereos, 42%;
dishwashers, 23%;
computers, 21%;
garbage disposers, 19%

2) Sure, but, again, it is not a zero sum game. When the rich get richer, so do the poor! The gap between them may expand in certain times, and it will shrink in others. But overall, even the poorest of Americans are better off now than they were 100, 50, even 25 years ago. Why do you imagine that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world?

"Even though marginal and investment tax rates are lower today than they were in Clinton era, do venture capital outlays even approach the level of the 1990s? No."

I agree, even though there is not the same business climate that there was in the 1990s, we still want investment. So, logic would dictate that a way to encourage that would be to give a tax incentive to do it. In the 1990s returns were so high that investors did not mind paying a large tax on capital. Now that returns are low, a great way to encourage investment is to lower the tax on gains so that modest returns are worth while.

"The Kemp-Roth Tax Cut was always intended to bring down the income tax rate for the top two percent. Those are the rich."

At least you define rich. but. 1) so are you really going to argue that you can prove that these tax cuts will only affect 1-2% of the population. These aren't the Kemp-Roth tax cuts. And even those affected more people. 2) so what? the point is that the rich are who drives our society. like it or not. if you think labor is a creative force try banging a hammer on your floor all day. failing that you may want to ask an architect for help.

Our argument is that the poor and middle class do not SUFFER when taxes are cut for the rich. Don't say that they do, prove it!

Lastly, being in favor of tax cuts does not make you a supply sider! I never said I was. They had some things right and some things wrong. I am what you on the left usually call a neo-liberal, but what most on the intellecutal right call a classical liberal. which I believe I said in my intial post. I never said anything about supply side other than that I favor tax cuts, which was just one of their many ideas.

Anyway, good luck with your progressive agenda. All I ask is that if 'progressives' ever take over, don't act like all of the leftists I am familiar with in history and put people like me in jail. Isn't the greatest proof that American capitalism truly works the fact that you can march into any corporate conglomerate book store in the country and find hundreds of titles that bemoan, belittle and seek to destroy those self-same corporations?

when the rich get richer so do the poor" prove that cutting taxes for the top 2 % hurts poor and middle class..

Greg that's an easy one. Call your Republican Congressman and ask if cutting Medicare, increasing deductibles, cutting Medicaid, Welfare, Pell Grants, increasing the costs of student loans hurts poor and middle class folks like my nieces and nephews. My memory tells me that your buds cut $40 billion or more directly related to those benefits a long, long time ago. LAST NIGHT !!!!

"We are deficit spending." That is not what I asked. Revenues did go up. Look it up. I don't like deficit spending any more than you do. Its because we are at war with a facsist group that is hell bent on the destruction of the west, but that is another story."

But its a story you fail and persistently fail at addressing, which, among other points, continues to dissuade any one of us here to let you off.

Gregorscoff

You can ratonalize anything.

The disparity between rich and poor gets greater under the system you propose.

Gregorscoff
I am middle class with 3 degrees. The Medicaid cuts just passed by Congress will probably put me out of a job as well as take away healthcare from quite alot of children I serve.

In what way do the tax cuts & social service cuts benefit the middle, working and poor classes?

Gregor
" Isn't the greatest proof that American capitalism truly works the fact that you can march into any corporate conglomerate book store in the country and find hundreds of titles that bemoan, belittle and seek to destroy those self-same corporations? "

Mo, it's confirmation of the fact that the ultracapitalist will sell the rope he uses to hang himself.

Everyone:

Don't know about all of you, but I am feeling a huge sense of unease about this morning's press conference. It seems to me that in order for the President to continue, he needs to contend, and in a bullying way, that the surveillance will continue with no FISA approval. The Constitution does not matter. Nor rule of law.

I think its finally gone to his head. ladies and gents, and I say this in all seriousness, the President has jumped off the pier...

Not my:

"Mo, it's confirmation of the fact that the ultracapitalist will sell the rope he uses to hang himself."

I love it.

E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Washington Post Writers Group
12.19.05 Conservative idea supply slows to a trickle/Supply-side myth fails in the Age of iPod

WASHINGTON — Who is running out of ideas now? It has been a cliche of American politics for more than two decades that those poor, tired liberals were bereft of big thoughts and wallowing in a swamp of old commitments, old ideas and old promises. Their allies in the Democratic Party were thought to be similarly geriatric.
In 1989, a headline in the Outlook section of The Washington Post confidently rendered this diagnosis on the liberals: “Tired and Defensive, They're Out of Ideas.” In 1997, Charles Bray, who was then president of the Johnson Foundation, argued that liberal anemia had created the opening for a conservative jolt. “The entry of new ways of thinking into the American intellectual bloodstream after two generations of liberals' monopolizing the public-policy debate has been good for the country,” Bray declared.

Let's accept — for the sake of argument, but also because the critique contained some truth — that at some point during the 1970s, liberalism became tiresome, arrogant, unreflective and hidebound. Let's further stipulate that this image gave conservatives their opening to seem fresh, creative, exciting and all those other virtues that marketers love to claim for their products.

It can be asserted beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the disapproving words about liberalism in the previous paragraph now applies to conservatism. The most compelling evidence for this is the contorted, contentious and incoherent struggle by Republicans in Congress to produce a budget.

The Republican leaders may or may not pass their cut-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich budget. It takes a degree of political incompetence usually associated with Democrats for the side that wants to preserve the true spirit of Christmas to invite so many coal-in-the-stocking metaphors at this time of year.

But there is something more important about this failure. It marks the dead end of a worn, haggard argument that conservatives have been peddling for 30 years, ever since that energetic guru of supply-side economics, Jude Wanniski, published his first articles on the subject and his exciting 1978 manifesto, “The Way the World Works.”

Supply-siders asserted that cutting taxes on the wealthy — and especially on savings and investment — would help everyone, including the poor, by promoting economic growth. Tax cuts would produce so much growth that they would pay for themselves. Since government programs were flawed, private investment was always more productive than government spending. And deficits, if they did come, need not worry us very much.

For many of us, this whole argument was always a highfalutin’ rationalization for giving the rich what they wanted, and often even more. Bill Clinton's economic policies should have definitively destroyed supply-side claims: Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, cut the deficit, and what followed was an exceptional period of economic growth.

But it took until this moment in 2005 for Republicans themselves to realize (even if many won't acknowledge it yet) that the help-the-wealthy, damn-the-deficits approach doesn't hold together, either as policy or politics. They are learning that the public doesn't buy the idea that cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains should take priority over providing health coverage and child care for struggling Americans. The tax cuts, it turns out, don't pay for themselves. The poor have not fared well since the big supply-side tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

And given how much Republicans want to spend on defense, farm subsidies, homeland security, roads, bridges, subsidies for energy companies, a flawed drug program for seniors and lots of other stuff, there's no way they can cut enough from programs for the poor to balance off the costs of their tax giveaways.

As a result, the Republican Party is fracturing right before our eyes. Moderate Republicans know these cuts in programs for the poor are unsustainable. Very conservative Republicans want to cut spending far more than the rest of the party (or its voters) will allow. Republicans leaders tilt this way and that, juggling this tax cut with that spending cut. In the process, they alienate just about everybody. The old faith is dying.

It took liberals a long time — too long — to adjust to the popular sense all those years ago that they were just trying to sell the same old nostrums. I'd like to hope that today's graying of conservatism will invite liberals to a new era of innovation. What's clear is that if Republicans and conservatives keep trying to sell their long-playing supply-side records in the Age of the iPod, they'll confine their audience to antiquarians and ideological hobbyists. It's the way the world works.

Fe
I can hear your sexy laugh!!

A lawyer in DC just emailed that Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com/ is filling in for Randi Rhodes on AirAmerica Radios & next couple of days.

Right now a caller just gave the Attorney Generals of The United States of America's phone number for citizens to call to have W arrested for treason for spying on American citizens without a warrant.

& John Kerry says (re tacking Alaska oil drilling on end of defense bill):

Call your Senators and tell them to stand up against this Republican abuse of power

He also refers to the one-party rule that's going on in broken Washington

Sen. Reid Calls US Congress 'Most Corrupt in History'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905A.shtml
US Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called the Republican-led Congress "the most corrupt in history" on Sunday, and distanced himself from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, at the center of an escalating probe.

US Operated Secret 'Dark Prison' in Kabul
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905B.shtml
Accounts from detainees at Guantánamo reveal that the United States as recently as last year operated a secret prison in Afghanistan where detainees were subjected to torture and other mistreatment, Human Rights Watch said.

Pascal Riché | Bush Proud of His Big Ears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905C.shtml
On the normal scale of democratic values, setting wiretaps to spy on one's fellow citizens without a green light from the judiciary is not the most virtuous behavior; revealing the existence of such wiretaps is performance of an act of public health. But President Bush has decided to set this scale on its head and asks us to "trust me on spying."

"Hmmm, I see...you have been a advocate for one failed ideology after another - Marxism and Voodoo economics."

I am glad you think that Marxism is a failed ideology. Where I come from 'progressive' is the new 'stucturalist', which is the old new 'socialist.' Meaning, I used to agree with most everything everyone has responded with.

I just came here b/c I saw the blog linked from the WaPo and thought well it might be fun or interesting to enter the lion's den. Perhaps stimulating for all, rather than the usual blog-o-sphere where people pat each other on the back.

I remain unconvinced of your position, as I am sure you remain unconvinced of mine. But it was an interesting excercise none the less. However, it was one that came at the expense of a lot of other work I should really be doing so I really shouldn't even be typing right now.

So, thanks for being surprisingly civil. Most of you seem like swell people, and I am sure you believe what you believe because you care deeply about people.

The leftist talking point that annoys me the most is that capitalists don't care about people. Sure there are some jerks on every side, but it is not attached to ideology. The right, andthough I am on the right I am no partisan Republican for the record, also cares deeply about people and their global health and well being. We just see a different - and what we believe is a more effective - way of achieving that noble goal.

To answer the question:

It is possible for revenues to increase following a round of tax cuts, because the "cut" simply cuts the percentage or rate at which a certain portion of income is taxed.

Here is a simplistic example: In 2004, A business is taxed on income of $100,000 at a flat rate of 35%. This results in taxes [government revenues] of $35,000.

Now imagine that the rate is cut to 30%, but the business is having a good year in 2005 and its income increases to $150,000. This results in taxes [revenues] of $45,000.

Ergo, revenues have increased while the tax RATE has been cut. This is what happened especially at the state level in the late nineties due to rapidly increasing personal and business incomes.

A reverse example of sorts can be seen in the realm of property taxes. It is why the property tax RATE can be cut but your total bill for property taxes continues to rise. In 2001, your house is worth $150,000 and your property taxes, at 2%, are $3000. By 2005, with the huge run in the real estate market, your house has now doubled to be worth $300,000. Property tax rates were cut to 1.5% but your bill has still increased to $4500.

Gregor:

To each their own.

Senator says she's asked for opinions on Bush impeachment
RAW STORY

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has become the first in the Senate to raise consideration of impeachment of President George W. Bush for authorizing spying on Americans without warrants, RAW STORY has learned.

In a release issued this evening, Boxer said she's asked "four presidential scholars" for their opinion on impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'

Boxer isn't the first congressmember today to float the word. Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in the spying program. The liberal California senator has tangled with Bush before -- earlier this year, she challenged the president's Ohio electoral votes.

Boxer's statement, acquired by RAW STORY, follows.

#
BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

#
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

But President Bush has decided to set this scale on its head and asks us to "trust me on spying."
Posted by: DiAnne at December 19, 2005 05:38 PM

TRUST?!?!?!?!?!? BwaHahahahahahahahaha..!!!

(1) Define and name these ghostly "enemies" of the US, Mr Dictator... er.. pResident Chimperor... Right this second, the only one paranoid about these imaginary enemies is you, Mr. Cretin.... Any real enemies the people of this nation might have right now have been created by, and made by, you and your illegal, unjust, immoral, and unethical attack on a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and were never a threat to any person in this country. The people of this nation never had anything to fear from Iraq until you decided to attack them because Halliburton (and others) want the oil beneath the sands of Iraq to rake in more money.... But you still don't name names and organizations beyond the vague "enemies" and "al Qaida"-type of organizations, do you? It's yet another scare tactic to keep the sheeples in line, isn't it?

(2) Resign your office on the grounds that you are unable to abide by the Constitution and the laws of this land and because your actions are those of a Dictator and Criminal for breaking those same laws you allegedly swore to uphold and abide by. Resigning would be the "honorable" thing to do. Then we'll see whether or not you can be "trusted" to do anything remotely honorable, ethical, moral, or decent as a human being....

Oh.... neffer mind. "Honorable" isn't found in your dictionary, is it...? er, you can read, can't you?

Good advice ... also good for a smile...

IMPEACH: The Guerrilla Marketing Movement

read the rest here...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/19/17374/325

Posted by: Gregorscoff at December 19, 2005 05:50 PM

I'm quite fond of George Bernard Shaw's view of socialism:

"If you're not a socialist at 19, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at 29, you have no brain".

I also take quite seriously Thomas Merton's notion that socialism works splendidly in spiritual communities, like monasteries, ashrams, communes, etc. I'd even add that works really well in families. It doesn't work (at least in my opinion) in diverse, fractious human communities, where an unequal desire to contribute to the whole strikes me as the rule rather than the exception.

In the end, tax rates must reflect a balance between private and public interest. Swing too far to one extreme and you discourage the natural human instinct to profit by virtue of one's own effort; swing too far to the other and you jeopardize the idea of the social contract, and invite insurrection and chaos.

greg before you return to your school work I would just like to respond to your last post where you said:

"The leftist talking point that annoys me the most is that capitalists don't care about people."

By this statment you are arguing that Progressives/Leftists as you call us are not capitalists.That is nonsense.

Check out the '04 Kerry plan and his tax cuts for business and to reduce fortune 500 healthcare costs.

I don't think that I am alone here in being a small business person or otheres here who work in large corporations, and largely involved as part of the investor class. Many of us own 401Ks, mutual funds, stocks, bonds annuties and even trade actively in options and margin just like you righties.

My point is that Democrats/Leftists as you call us or Progressives also care deeply about our investments and retirement. Some how the right/Hannity and Rush have us labeled as antibusiness, anticapitalism, antistockmarket wanting redestribution to the poor.

What we don't want is the Middle class and Lower Income class having their $7/hour income redistributed to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who strongly oppose the flat tax.

Even the Natl Assoc. of Realtors oppose that plan and the only ones who agree with it are Steve Forbes and maybe Laffer.

I think it is fair to say that most of us here strongly belive in the Progressive tax system and oppose gutting social services that effects not only the poor but the middle class who have seen not only services cut, but their kid's student loans double or triple and watched their local taxes sky rocket b/c of the tax shift by this adminsitration to state and local authorities.

But yes we can be Progressive/ProGrowth/Investor Class voters and support the Middle class without buying into your 2% sollution.

You are certainly welcome here, but please understand that all Progressives, myself included, are also ardent capitalists, and it is about time that the right and your friends understand that many progressives share that value, we just don't buy into your logic of dismantling government to get there. Remember the economy under Bill Clinton. My stock portfolio along with social services and minority wealth were much stronger under his watch than it has been the last 5 years in which the level of poverty has risen each and every year since January 2000.

And guess what, it's outsourced to private contractors so that Congress has no oversight capability.

http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/12/19/6222/5410/displaystory//

Posted by: dwahzon at December 19, 2005 10:51 AM

War of the future ~ fought by contractors, i.e. mercenaries. (Does anyone know what other wars have already been fought this way?)

we should demand that Senators determine whether Bush/Rove spyed or wire tapped the John Kerry campaign.

Article 2 gives Bush the authority to be King?
Where is that written?

The right, andthough I am on the right I am no partisan Republican for the record, also cares deeply about people and their global health and well being. We just see a different - and what we believe is a more effective - way of achieving that noble goal.

Posted by: Gregorscoff at December 19, 2005 05:50 PM

... yeah I'm curious, how is that going anyway?

p.s. this may be the funniest thing I've read all day, and I quote...

"You 'progressives' hate progress. You want to keep the developing world from developing and becoming industrial consumers, you don't want to fight facsist Arab nationalists who want to destroy western democracy and capitalism, you hate science and fear technology - paying attention only to alarmist ideologues who are jokes among their peer review collegues - and you try to enforce an unnatural equality that will lower our collective standard of living in the name of 'fairness.'"

Iraq speeches, election don't help Bush
New poll: A majority doesn't approve of his handling of Iraq

CNN -- President Bush's approval ratings do not appear to have changed significantly, despite a number of recent speeches he's given to shore up public support for the war in Iraq and its historic elections on Thursday.

A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll conducted over the weekend found his approval rating stood at 41 percent, while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how the president is handling his job. A majority, or 52 percent, say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html

Bush’s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Hmmm. I love the smell of trollbait in the evening.

Gregorscoff, you are undeniably well-educated and articulate. Obviously you have spent a great deal of time and expended a great deal of thought in the course of developing the POV that you came to share with us today. I commend you for that.

I'm also glad that you felt free to come here and engage in spirited debate with us, since that sort of free discussion of ideas is, after all, the very thing that forged this country from the trampled ground that the imperialist British were grudgingly willing to let us crawl on some 230 years or so ago.

And I'm glad that we have also had the chance to discuss and refute your logical arguments logically in return. This has been an interesting dialogue. You're obviously a thoughtful young man, and you hold strong beliefs that you are willing to stand up for.

This is a Good Thing.

On the other hand, it also doesn't keep me from believing in my heart and in my head that you are also a puerile putz who is pedantically pontificating in order to attract attention to yourself.

good day sir,
Otter

Letter from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Vice President Cheney regarding NSA domestic wiretapping, July 17th 2003.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html

Hey, does Bill O'Reilly know about this?

Presidential Kwanzaa Message

By The Associated Press
Mon Dec 19, 4:11 PM ET

President Bush's 2005 Kwanzaa message:

I send greetings to those observing Kwanzaa.

African Americans and people around the world reflect on African heritage during Kwanzaa. The seven days of this celebration emphasize the seven principles of Nguzo Saba — unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith. These values contribute to a culture of citizenship and compassion, and Kwanzaa activities help pass on African values and traditions to future generations.

As families and friends gather for Kwanzaa, Americans remember the many contributions African Americans have made to our country's character and celebrate the diversity that makes our Nation strong. May your commitment to family, faith, and community thrive during this holiday season and throughout the coming year.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a happy Kwanzaa.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Please consider purchasing ($3.99) & viewing this video (online). It's an hour-long video that was created about the pro-war movement by Lee Goodman, a peace activist & former candidate for the House in my district. He says, "I am thrilled with the positive responses from people who have previewed the video. I’m not Michael Moore, but I think this video can make a real contribution to the national debate about the war. I hope you will take a look at the video and will tell your friends about it. Information about the video follows. Thanks, Lee Goodman"

This might be something to show at your Jan. 7 events or at least to discuss. And for those of you who were in D.C. for the pro-peace rally in September, you may see yourself on film.

Pro-Warriors: In Their Own Words

In this honest, in-depth documentary, ordinary Americans who are active with the pro-war movement tell you the real reasons they support the war on Iraq and what they think is motivating the people who are against it. Entertaining, informative, and sometimes shocking, this video will give you new insight into what is causing the polarization of American politics.

Filmed on location in Washington, D.C. at the largest anti-war demonstration since the Viet Nam war, Pro-Warriors features rare interviews with leaders of the grass-roots pro-war movement. The characters include Judah the Catholic Soldier, Doctor Bill, Club Gitmo Man, and Corporal John. This video is more than history, it is historic. This is the story the networks don’t tell. This is real!

Available only online, at http://www.pro-warriors.com/. Running time: 56 minutes. Price: $3.99 Profits will help support http://www.atcenternetwork.com/ and the Northbrook Peace Committee, Inc.

Did Bush domestic spy program eavesdrop on American journalists?
by John in DC - 12/19/2005 12:15:00 PM

I had an interesting discussion this morning with DC political consultant Marc Laitin. We both came to the conclusion that it sounds like Bush's super-secret illegal domestic spying program may be targeting US journalists and that may be why Bush never got it cleared by the court and is worried about it coming forward now.

Think about it.

1. Bush had the authority to go the court AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE and RETROACTIVELY get the warrant to do surveillance he'd already done. He didn't. The only reason I can come up with for why Bush would NOT go to the court after the fact is because he thought the court would slap him down. The court's greatest concern would likely be spying on US citizens, and an even greater concern would be spying on either members or Congress or the American media. If Bush were spying on American media, he might just lose this retroactive warrant.

2. Bush says that these were only Americans making phone calls to people with known Al Qaeda ties. That probably knocks out members of Congress, but it very much sounds like US journalists. Who else, other than terror cells, would be talking on a regular basis with people who might have ties to terrorism? American journalists working on stories.

It could even include US journalists talking to their bureaus abroad. Read again who Bush said the program is targeting (if you believe him):
"intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."

What's a "known link"? Does a journalist who has contacts inside Al Qaeda have a "known link" to Al Qaeda? Well sure he does, he absolutely has links/contacts with Al Qaeda.

3. Bush says that revealing the details of his spy program would tell Al Qaeda what we were doing and stop the program from being effective. Again, journalists. Al Qaeda already knows we're monitoring phone calls and emails, we've been doing that for years. They also know that the Patriot Act lets Bush spy on Americans (with the appropriate court orders). So what about the revelation of this domestic spying program could possibly tip off Al Qaeda to something they already know we're doing? There has to be a new wrinkle to the program, something Al Qaeda never thought we'd do. Spy on US journalists.

If terrorists knew that Bush was monitoring every communication US journalists were having a lot of their foreign sources would dry up. As much as "the terrorists" think that the US is monitoring everything, they'd be more willing to trust a US journalist since they know we don't spy on our journalists in this country. Until now.

Remember the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle. The terrorists were happy to meet with Pearle, and kill him, a few years back. They clearly weren't that worried about Pearle being surveilled by the US government. And just look at all of Al Jazeera's interviews with people tied to Al Qaeda, how Al Jazeera gets its Al Qaeda videos etc. It's clear the terrorists trust their reporters, and it's hard to believe the Bush administration isn't spying on Al Jazeera. Sure, Al Jazeera are foreigners, but don't you think it's possible the success of such spying on Al Jazeera, if it's true, would make someone high up in the administration say "hey, what about following the NYT too?"

And here's another possibility. We outsource torture to foreign governmments, why wouldn't the Bush administration outsource surveillance of American citizens, including American journalists? It would be just the kind of too-cute-by-half move the Bush administration would come up with to obey the law against spying on US citizens while at the same time doing it. Ask your foreign government friends to do the spying on Americans for you.

I don't have proof yet, but Bush spying on US journalists would explain everything UNEXPLAINED about this entire story. Bush refusing to follow the law, Bush refusing to go to court, Bush refusing to tell more members of Congress, Bush's concern that the terrorists, if they knew we were doing this, would be tipped off, and Bush's desire to keep this from the public. It all makes sense that the target of the domestic spying could be US journalists.

Perhaps some enterprising journalist will ask the White House directly, has the Bush administration or its allies ever spied on American journalists?

http://www.americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/did-bush-domestic-spy-program.html

Ira-you know me, and that I'm normally not a paranoid person. But, during the time that my e-mails to a friend in Canada were disappearing into cyberspace for about 8 hours before mysteriously reappearing in my friend's e-mail box, there were also very strange clicks on my phone approximately 10-20 seconds after I picked up the line. Then my conversation became hollow- as though there were a third party on the line. When I would mention it to whoever I was talking to at the time, the click would happen again, and the sound quality of the call would return. I assumed, actually assumed, that my e-mail was being monitored and my phone was being tapped. My husband, who is not paranoid either, agreed with me, and asked me to slow down on the LTE campaign that I'd been engaging in. He was very concerned about it. This was during the time that I was working very hard for the Wesley Clark campaign and very politically active. I KNOW that Bush spied on the Kerry campaign if he'd spy on a teenie little fish in the pond like me. I'd venture to say that all the spying that took place which was not directed against Arab americans was directed against Democratic party operatives- and that it was this spying that the president refused to take to the courts for a warrant. After all, the warrants could have been made retroactive had they been for legal purposes. That's why his argument that there was no time to ask the special cours for approval because of time restrants is completely invalid. This court issues "after the fact" warrants when necessary.
We're political enemies , it's that simple. Ahd Georgy's people know who every one of us is, no matter how small our roles.
It's Nixon's "enemies list" all over again, but with a president much more insane than Nixon in control. And I agree with Fe- this morning's speech was terrifying. Because he really doesn't respect that law of the land at all. God help us all.

Time to freep...

Created: Monday, December 19, 2005, at 13:37:41 EDT
Do you agree with President Bush that secret wiretaps are needed to protect the American people?

Yes .... 40% ... 57527 votes

No ..... 60% ... 85237 votes

Total: 142764 votes
as of 8:50 pm eastern

http://www.cnn.com

IMPEACH.

Behind the Steel Curtain: The Real Face of the Occupation
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Q.shtml
White flags on top of houses and cars; plenty of American and Iraqi military vehicles; too many check points and blocks on the road; many frightening walking patrols; curfew after sunset; heaps and heaps of destroyed houses, shops, offices, the only bridge, hospitals and medical care centers; walls covered with bullets shots and election posters; and empty faces with bleak looks wandering in the streets. This is the picture of al-Qa'im after the "Steel Curtain" military operation began on November 5, 2005, with 3,000 American and Iraqi troops participating.

Iraq Fuel Price Hike Sparks Protests
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905R.shtml
Violent demonstrations broke out across Iraq, and the oil minister threatened to resign Monday, after the government raised the prices of gasoline and cooking fuel by up to 900 percent.

Christian Peacemaker Teams Respond to Presidential Address
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905S.shtml
Christian Peacemaker Teams working in Iraq and Jordan reacted early Monday to President Bush's address on the war in Iraq. Reached by telephone in the Teams' Baghdad apartment, Maxine Nash reflected on the impact that the war has had on services ordinary Iraqis rely on: "I tried to watch President Bush's speech," she said, "but I couldn't - there was no electricity."

Bush Leaves Out the Bad News in Iraqi Poll

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.

The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.

Bush frequently talks in general terms about millions of Iraqis ``looking forward to a future with hope and optimism,'' as he put it in a news conference Monday. The previous evening, he was more specific in his televised address when he declared, ``Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well - and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead.''

He was referring to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners before the Iraqi general elections last week. Bush is dismissive of polls that reflect on his own performance, claiming not to pay attention to them.

Among the findings:

-More than two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed face-to-face opposed the U.S. presence, but only one-quarter of respondents wanted American troops to leave right away.

-44 percent said their country is better off than before the war.

-More than six in 10 said they feel safe in their neighborhoods, up from four in 10 in June 2004.

-Half said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was wrong, up from 39 percent in February 2004.

-More than two-thirds said they expect things to get better in the coming months.

Another one to look at and freep...

There are 5 questions altogether.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051219091909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Hmmm... did I happen to mention...

IMPEACH

??

It's hopping in the irc if any would care to join us.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for impeach bush. (0.07 seconds) 

Dianne,the reps always just tell half of the truth.

In the spirit of getting it done, I just want to report back to this wonderful group that Madame D., Ross Nickow of the Tenth Dems and David Borris of NSPI are putting together quite the little awesome Jan 7th Out of Iraq Event. The guest list is looking rather faboo--2 greats are confirmed and one we are still crossing our fingers on. We'll announce later. Just a little tease for now. Thanks to Madame, Ross and David for all the great work!!!