bloodiest day in bagdhad since 'end of aggression'

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by spillmind
'...I declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 annually, most recently on January 21, 1998. Pursuant to section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)) and section 201 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat posed by foreign terrorists. ...'

he signed a little paper but did NOTHING to back it up. he CUT inteligence spending and sign on to that retard toricelli pricpale that said we could use intel sources with "shady backgrounds"

Originally posted by spillmind
should lead you to believe that he took action. i would call that 'doing anything'

he also signed th iraq liberation act that stated that regime change should be a us top priority but didn't follow it up either.

Originally posted by spillmind
your article is speculation- at best- and the very reason why people who think clinton/gore caused the 9/11 tragedy is a farce, and holds no water. there is a reason legal recourse is out of the question. not a coindicence, either.

speculation? it's talking to someone who was on the panel.

Originally posted by spillmind
taking money from lobbyists is nothing new to our government. what's funny to me is how people like you post links about parties taking money for favors, and then don't post anything to balance it out, smacking of simply hypocrisy to me.

theres a difference: the report came out they got more money from the airlines they the EVER got and they changed it. quid pro que anyone?

Originally posted by spillmind
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/elec04.prez.bush.funds/index.html

bush is on pace for a new record. any favors being done in exchange for this? human rights violations? tax cuts for the rich?

just because these favors don't attribute immediate deaths like 9/11 did, there are much larger impacts on people's lives with the money bush gets.

tax cuts for the rich? so a nyc cop and a public school teacher are rich? peple who are married are rich? with kids? are they rich too? they all got tax cuts rangeing from 1000 to 3000 dollars.

 

[NightTrain]

A thousand pardons for my tardiness - my wife had knee surgery & I'm spread pretty thin.

Thanks to all that picked up my slack there; yes, I was going to list out the ample opportunities that Billy Bob had to take out Osama before he matured into a world class menace. Dubya got handed a bucket of worms and I think he's doing a damn fine job in trying to correct 8 years worth of inept leadership from an inept President.

OBL should have been quietly eliminated from the picture immediately after the first attempt on the WTC. It still boggles my mind that he wasn't made Priority #1 - but there were blowjobs afoot, a fella's gotta have priorities, right?? So many interns, so little time.

Ken Adelman wrote an interesting article about Clinton and his failure to protect America :


Signs of the Times

By Ken Adelman Published 01/10/2002

Two important Times stories - one in the New York Times, the other in the London Sunday Times - tell us a lot about the news media and help set the record straight about the Clinton administration's failed efforts to combat terrorists.

The first story contains a rebuke of Fox News broadcasters for patriotism. The second shows how President Clinton passed up three chances to nab Osama bin Laden before his massive terrorist attacks against us.

First up, Fox.

You'd think that in our post-9/11 world, wearing a flag pin signifies nothing worse than national unity in our fight against terrorism.

But essayist Caryn James thinks otherwise. In her December 30, 2001 New York Times essay on "The Year in Television," Ms. James pointed out that right after September 11th came "a round of flag-waving and flag-wearing patriotism, in which even some network correspondents wore flag pins."

Before long, however, all the networks but one realized the grave error of this move. "That was rightly seen as crossing a line into politics," James lectures, "and was banned by every network and cable channel except Fox News." Then came her punch-line - "so much for its ludicrous claim to political balance."

Granted, I'm biased towards Fox News, not only for giving me the opportunity to write a weekly column on their website, but also for frequent appearances on the air. But even if Ms. James wrote that about another network, I'd consider her claim rather "ludicrous."

Why would wearing an American flag pin sacrifice "political balance"? Is that more Republican than Democratic? Surely the Democrats wouldn't admit that. Is it pro-American as opposed to pro-Taliban? Surely so, but Ms. James can't mean that by "political balance." American patriotism, symbolized by a flag pin, doesn't compromise "political balance," but instead proclaims a determination to preserve our values of freedom and tolerance.

Clinton's Failure

"U.S. Missed Three Chances to Seize Bin Laden" headlined England's most prestigious and best-selling newspaper, the Sunday Times, on January 6th in the first of a three-part series.

The much-discussed piece began: "President Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East."

The first offer came in the summer of 1996 when Sudanese officials were willing to hand over the terrorist, then living in their country. They had done something similar when giving Carlos "The Jackal" to French authorities two years earlier.

Yet in our case, unlike the hardheaded French, the Clinton White House let pass the Sudanese offer. The very next month bin Laden struck, when "a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected."

The other two offers came in the summer of 2000. The Clinton team handled neither seriously. Within 14 months, bin Laden struck again, this time more spectacularly with the 3,000+ dead on September 11th.

The only redeeming element of this story is Bill Clinton's own admission of wrongdoing. He senses the horrendous costs of his inaction in his squandered presidency.

As the Sunday Times reports: "Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably 'the biggest mistake of my presidency.'"

Clinton may have learned his lesson, but what have we learned? Frivolous leadership, as practiced by the Clinton administration, brings high costs through unwillingness to address, and redress, serious dangers. And dangerous leaders bent on our destruction with a capability to wreck havoc (through "martyrs" or weapons of mass destruction) should be neutralized before any massive attacks.

Clinton's admission may be cold comfort for us today. But admitting the mistakes of the past is the first step to making sure they never happen again.

 

[eric]

Hey NT, good to see you back. Hope your wife is feeling better, send her our regards!

 

[dijetlo]

Hey Wilbur,
>>he CUT inteligence spending and sign on to that retard toricelli pricpale that said we could use intel sources with "shady backgrounds"<<
Good point, though in fairness the reason for the ruling on "shady" intelligence sources was Iran/Contra, where the CIA ran a gun running/drug dealing operation out of central america that was billed as an intelligence operation. A couple of current administration officials as well as a FOX new personality were pardoned out of prosecutions by 41.
>>he also signed the iraq liberation act that stated that regime change should be a us top priority but didn't follow it up either.<<
Clinton didn't invade, but he did push the sanctions. They appear to have effectively stunted Husseins ability to menace other nations (which is what they were implemented to do).
>> so a nyc cop and a public school teacher are rich? <<
Taxes are done by income, not job description. NY wages are well above the national average.
>>they all got tax cuts rangeing from 1000 to 3000 dollars.<<
But even that doesn't account for the projected bulk of the lost revenue. The big winners are the ones who pay large estate and dividend taxes. Which are very much, favor of the rich.

 

[spillmind]

hey NT- sorry to hear about your wife, hope she's on her way to a speedy recovery, i was getting tired of kicking your butt, and i hope she can get back to resuming her responsibility!

i know you are just as sensitive as anyone else, so realise i'm kidding, and it's all love/respect

'Dubya got handed a bucket of worms and I think he's doing a damn fine job in trying to correct 8 years worth of inept leadership from an inept President.'

it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight. not so forgiving of clinton, but overwhelmingly supportive of our misgivings in iraq. you are such to a heavy bais, and i believe somewhere you have some objectivity, although you choose to block out some things that conflict in my mind. that i don't understand.

and lefty hater wilbur:

the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. sorry, but your points are isolated and skewed, and frankly, don't hold water.

i implore you to NOT FORGET the link i posted, and the statement i made:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...unds/index.html

bush is on pace for a new record. any favors being done in exchange for this? human rights violations? tax cuts for the rich?

when you wonder where the money is coming from, and where it is beinf funnelled back to, these 1-3K cuts are small potatoes. just look at the favors and happenings that are a direct result from these corrupt donations. democrats AND republicans are just as guilty, but bush has got his 57 million dollar campaign chest, and that ain't clean money in my eyes. NONE OF IT IS.

 

[NightTrain]

Thanks, she's doing well. Propped up in bed, high on percocet & being catered to... life is good. This is her second knee surgery, they had to re-align her kneecap this time.

it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight. not so forgiving of clinton, but overwhelmingly supportive of our misgivings in iraq. you are such to a heavy bais, and i believe somewhere you have some objectivity, although you choose to block out some things that conflict in my mind. that i don't understand.

I like to think that I'm objective, and I'm certainly not blind to the truth. As I said to Bry a while back, if you can convince me that I'm wrong on any issue via supporting articles and/or logic, I'll be the first to give you an Attaboy and admit publicly here in the forum that I stand corrected. I have absolutely no problem in doing so & would be grateful for you setting me straight.

Where exactly is my heavy bias?

the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. sorry, but your points are isolated and skewed, and frankly, don't hold water.

Of course the rich would get more of a tax break than a middle class person - they pay the lion's share of all income revenue collected. I think you've subscribed to the class warfare that the Democrats are so skilled in fomenting. Want some stats that may just open your eyes on who pays taxes in America?

Behold! (damn, I love saying that)

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.


The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

 

[eric]

Time to dump our progressive tax system, and do what is right. A flat tax for all.

 

[spillmind]

i'm well aware of that.

funny how he sure plugged it to the public by sporting the 'no tie' image to appeal to the middle class. kinda like his flight stud outfit. this guy could give a shit about the american public/veterans.

'Of course the rich would get more of a tax break than a middle class person - they pay the lion's share of all income revenue collected. I think you've subscribed to the class warfare that the Democrats are so skilled in fomenting. Want some stats that may just open your eyes on who pays taxes in America? '

i know these stats to be true, however, i guess all these economists don't have a damn clue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2747153.stm

and bush does?

the fact is, taxes are going BACK UP in 2005, post (s)election ANYWAY!

 

[eric]

God that article sounds like it was written by a junior high school student, I loved the data that was presented.

 

[NightTrain]

Uhhh... Spilly, did you read the article?

Mr Stiglitz is a well-known thorn in the side of more conservative economists.

Formerly a senior figure in both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, he stepped down in order to criticise both agencies, and the US too, for their policies towards the developing world.

He is also a staunch critic of the current White House - and a signatory of Tuesday's advert in the New York Times.

The campaign is backed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington DC think tank.

See, when you run across something like this in your supporting articles, it SHOULD throw up some flags for you. This guy is politically motivated, yes??

While I applaud you for posting legit news sources, the Beeb is clearly slanted to the left, most of the time. The remainder of the time they're center. I have yet to read one article that leans to the right, which really is a shame because the Beeb has outstanding connections around the world. Keep that in mind when you run across articles such as this.

this guy could give a shit about the american public/veterans

Really? I'm sure you have backup, let's see it... I still get baffled when you make these sorts of rediculous blanket statements that you have to know you're going to be called on by now.


Do you now understand why the upper class gets more of a tax break? They pay all the taxes! So please, knock off the bitterness toward people that pay your share.

Eric - I agree. I really do think the flat tax would be much more fair.

 

[Bry]

yeah, kindergarten. And criticizing an issue for how a linked article is written, what's that? Oh, let us know when you get a Nobel. I'd like to be the first to congratulate you. Or maybe you liked NT's post because not only did it give three whole precentages, but it gave us nice big pie graphs to reiterate. Now that's some serious data!

 

[eric]

"When you are designing a tax programme, you look for the biggest bang for the buck," he said.

Gee, that would have never occured to me.

You should get money out to people who will spend it and spend it quickly," he said.

Man I could win the noble prize if this is all it takes.

Give me a break, bry, this article is worthless. Read spilly's post and how much stock he put into this junk, that is why the article is being picked apart. If he wanted to discuss the concept fine, but don't link to worthless garbage.

 

[Bry]

eric,

jejeje. I have yet to meet the economist that was graceful with words. But the two things you quoted were presented in precise contradiction to NTs post. "you look for the biggest bang for your buck". That means a tax cut for the rich that was billed as an economic stimulus package was really nothing more than a tax cut for the rich that cost an already hurting budget a needed few extra billion without putting extra money in the hands of people that need it and need to spend it. Maybe you COULD say that, but you wouldn't because it runs against the grain of your ideology. But the logic is right there in NTs post: saving a little and much needed money for the people-who-have-not would hurt the budget much less simply because the people-who-have-not provide a nearly inconsequential portion of the yearly take, AND because it would help the economy exponentially more because it's money that would get spent immediately on cool luxury items like food. Obviously, this guy won a nobel because he's something unusual among economists: he doesn't simply espouse theories designed to leave a bigger percentage in his own pocket while in reality doing nothing for the actual state of the economy. But maybe I'm wrong. After all, the article did point out that Stiglitz was only one of 400 economists that got together to criticize this asinine tax cut.

Obviously, this article wasn't taken from an economy journal, but you weren't complaining about the style of the article, but rather the actual quotes from Stiglitz. And I would hardly say the article is being picked apart. NT criticized it for being biased (though his own article suffers from the same problem) and you criticized it for being less than profound, though you haven't addressed the economic theories that were implicit in it.

Maybe you are saying that a better article would be one that gave more details about Stiglitz's economic theories? You would probably be right, there, though I think this one provides enough for discussion without dismissing it with insults.

 

[eric]

Bry, I'm sure the people who wrote the article are well versed in economics and more than capable of laying out their arguments in a far more technical manner. My complaint is not with the authors but rather with spill's choice to post this particular one. With the enumerable economic information and articles available on the net alone why would you choose this particular one to support your argument.

Want some stats that may just open your eyes on who pays taxes in America? '

Here are spilly's own words. What stats? This guy is in such a rush to prove the world wrong he does not do the proper background work. Yet if you post a detailed article that lays out the facts, he mocks you for it.

This is the reason for my sarcasicm.

 

[eric]

Excuse me bry, I made a mistake when I said they were spilly's own words about the stats. I forgot spilly does not know how to use the quote function and I assumed they were his words.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by spillmind
and lefty hater wilbur:

the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. sorry, but your points are isolated and skewed, and frankly, don't hold water.

really don't hold water? well whats about the tax cuts EVERYONE in my family got? people who are IT techs,cops, nurses, secratarys right on down the line oh yeah they didn't get a tax cut

Originally posted by spillmind
i implore you to NOT FORGET the link i posted, and the statement i made:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...unds/index.html

bush is on pace for a new record. any favors being done in exchange for this? human rights violations? tax cuts for the rich?

so what he gets money so doesn't the dnc and even gore still gets money. more people are donating money. he's not like the dnc where he'll hold a small rally and get like 60 million at once of "soft money" bush is only getting hard money.

Originally posted by spillmind
when you wonder where the money is coming from, and where it is beinf funnelled back to, these 1-3K cuts are small potatoes. just look at the favors and happenings that are a direct result from these corrupt donations. democrats AND republicans are just as guilty, but bush has got his 57 million dollar campaign chest, and that ain't clean money in my eyes. NONE OF IT IS.

corrupt donations? hello campaign finace law. 2 grand per person and thats it. i know people who sent money to bush. they sent $50 bucks. they can send $1950 more if they want to and still might. the only person who's broken any laws has been john edwards people and those were all his lawyer buddies.

 

[spillmind]

to start, i agree that a flat tax would be the best as well. but you all know that Bush and co. (and the democrats, for that matter) would never go for that, with all the dirty money ther depend on for campaign financing. favors have to come back around somehow, and it's usually in the form of a tax break. god bless america. money can buy you ANYTHING.

Uhhh... Spilly, did you read the article?

See, when you run across something like this in your supporting articles, it SHOULD throw up some flags for you. This guy is politically motivated, yes??

yes! and in fact i posted it out of the many stories on PURPOSE. i find it interesting when people see that political motication and automatically dismiss the content. just a practical demonstration like in my humanitarian posts earlier.

here's a statement from another demo Murtha, http://www.house.gov/murtha/taxquots.htm
because it's just funny to see each spin. i thought my point was already made, and did not depend on a middle of the road link to the be coherent.

i still believe taxes are going back up in 2005!

Excuse me bry, I made a mistake when I said they were spilly's own words about the stats. I forgot spilly does not know how to use the quote function and I assumed they were his words.

that's for you eric. another assumption gone awry. hate on my style all your want.

 

[spillmind]

from peter orzag at the new republic:

Where we may part company is in how effective the administration's form of Keynesian economics has been. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were poorly designed to jump-start the economy in the short run, at the least from the perspective of achieving that goal at a reasonable long-term budget cost. Yes, the administration's tax cuts contributed to economic growth in the third quarter by boosting demand for goods and services--but almost any tax cut or spending increase would have done that.

The challenge, and where the administration's approach is fundamentally flawed, is in maximizing the bang-for-the-buck you get from the tax or spending changes. A January 2002 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that accelerating reductions in marginal tax rates and cutting the capital gains tax rate, two of the principal components of the 2003 tax legislation, would both rank quite low in terms of short-term spur to the economy, per dollar of budget cost. Despite the administration's cheerleading about the tax cuts, the CBO analysis seems consistent with the evidence thus far.

Economy.com, an independent economic research firm, attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent.

Economy.com has an outstanding reputation in doing these sorts of calculations, but let's give ourselves some room for error and boost the estimate by 50 percent. Then, in dollar terms, the tax cuts could explain about $30 billion of the real increase in annualized GDP during the third quarter. (The total increase in annualized real GDP was $168 billion. So even when we increase the Economy.com estimate by 50 percent, the tax cut still explains less than a fifth of that increase. And note that I'm not even taking into account the fact that the GDP figures are annualized, which makes the dollar effect from the tax cut seem larger. In other words, a $30 billion increase in annualized GDP is actually only about an $8 billion increase in the quarter itself.)

Now how much did we pay for that $30 billion increase in GDP? The 2003 tax cut was officially scored as costing $350 billion over ten years. But that official estimate assumes that all the various sunsets in the legislation take effect. If instead all the provisions were continued past their sunsets, Bill Gale and I have estimated that the cost would increase to about $1 trillion over ten years.

Even if we get some additional growth from the tax cuts in early 2004, as you suggest, it's not hard to see that the administration's form of Keynesian economics is a pretty bad deal. If we wanted $30 billion in additional demand, we should have been able to get it for well under $1 trillion. For example, more state fiscal relief or increases in homeland security investments would have been much more cost-effective.

Perhaps it's not surprising that the tax cuts were so poorly designed from the perspective of short-term demand effects, since most of the administration's rhetoric involves long-term supply-side effects. Administration officials have even implausibly hinted that the tax cuts could somehow pay for themselves over time, by sparking so much growth that the revenue losses would be more than offset. To evaluate this claim, let's turn to the effects of the tax cuts in the long term.

Given the structure of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, researchers have found that any positive long-term effects from the impact of reduced tax rates are outweighed by the negative effects of the larger deficits associated with the tax cuts. For example, two researchers at the Federal Reserve found that a reduction in taxes that appears similar to the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 law reduces long-term output and has only a slight positive effect on output in the first ten years. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the 2003 jobs and growth package would generate zero or negative effects on jobs and growth in the second half of the decade. Other studies have reached similar conclusions.

These results underscore the implausibility of claims that the tax cuts could even come close to paying for themselves. They suggest that the net effect over the long term of the deficit-financed tax cuts is, if anything, to reduce GDP, not to increase GDP--let alone increase it by enough to offset the negative effect on the budget from the tax cut itself.

The bottom line is that the tax cuts have caused a substantial worsening of our long-term budget picture. They reduce long-term economic growth because the deleterious effect from the increase in the budget deficit outweighs any gain from the tax cuts themselves. And I haven't even mentioned their adverse effects on after-tax income inequality. Whatever modest positive effect the tax cuts may have exerted in the most recent quarter, we will pay much too high a cost for them in the long term.

 

[spillmind]

and back to the topic:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_255

rummy says these happenings are sad but neccessary. i feel terrible for these families. i'm not sure how long these incidents can happen before the public opinion mounts against bushco.

 

[spillmind]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=15&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_917

looks like the aggression is being stifled, aright.... jeez. will the death ever end?