"substantial margin," indeed. A-hee-hee-hee.
10076. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:22:00 PM
500,000 is less than the number of fraudulent votes.
500,000 is less than Gore's margin in one liberal city.
10077. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:23:08 PM
Ace,
If academic models consider a sitting president running for a re-election and a sitting veep running for first time election as equivalent, then I think that's a flaw in the model.
JJ,
500,000 votes is not chump change. He won by a substantially bigger margin than Kennedy and Carter, I believe. The popular vote was not particularly close.
Nonetheless, you have managed to ignore a bunch of other points while focusing on something that no one disputes.
10078. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:24:55 PM
"If academic models consider a sitting president running for a re-election and a sitting veep running for first time election as equivalent, then I think that's a flaw in the model. "
Well, I'm sure you know better than they do, POM.
You have the "facts" at your fingertips, after all.
10079. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:25:48 PM
Ace,
I said that "I think" it's a flaw. Hence, an expression of opinion.
10080. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:31:20 PM
Kennedy won by approximately 114,000.
Carter won by approximately 1.7 million.
10081. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:36:48 PM
Really? Then the piece I read a month ago must have been referring to something else vis a vis the win of Carter over Ford. What, I can't imagine, since I know it wasn't all that close electorally. I'll hunt it down to see. Thanks.
10082. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:39:27 PM
Former Dem Finance Chief
To Take Fifth in Pardon Probe
Monday, February 26, 2001
And on Monday, Capitol Hill sources confirmed that former Democratic Party Finance Chairwoman Beth Dozoretz intends to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights in connection with Burton's House Government Reform Committee probe into the controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich.
Well la-di-fucking-dah.
10083. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:40:01 PM
As for "substantial margin", Ace, I was referring to its supposed "closeness". 500,000 votes certainly is a substantial margin for it being that "close".
I've said before now that it is most odd for Gore to be slammed for running a poor race, when he would have won handily had it not been for the morons in Floriday. That's the point of my post.
10084. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:43:26 PM
"As for "substantial margin", Ace, I was referring to its supposed "closeness". 500,000 votes certainly is a substantial margin for it being that "close"."
Ah. 500,000 is a "substantial margin" when you consider how INsubstantial the margin was.
So, a one point win in a 97-96 basketball game is a "pretty substantial" margin, considering how close the game was.
Or, perhaps, three feet tall is pretty fucking tall, compared to other extremely short persons.
In fact, it's substantially tall, considering how short the person in question is.
Politics of Meaninglessness.
Words without meaning. Meaning without intent. Intent without import.
How breathtakingly stupid.
10085. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:44:55 PM
"when he would have won handily had it not been for the morons in Floriday."
Won handily = won by 1-5,000 votes in Florida, where six million votes were cast, IF we assume all dimples and scratches in the vicinity of Gore's name were intended Gore votes.
"Handily."
"Substantial."
"Idiotic."
10086. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:46:55 PM
The West Wing is a pretty "substantial" show, considering how superficial and shallow it is.
But seriously -- given the show's superficiality and shallowness, it really is fairly substantial.
10087. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:49:19 PM
Bush is a pretty "bright" guy, considering how "stupid" he is.
Clinton is a pretty "ethical" guy, considering how "sleazy and venal" he is.
Ms. POM is a pretty "valuable" poster, considering how "useless" she is.
10088. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:49:38 PM
Ace,
Fine. If you don't accept "substantial margin" in the spirit intended, I cheerfully retract.
He won the popular vote by a more substantial margin than Kennedy did--someone who has never been dinged for running a bad race.
The point, again, is that I see little merit in dissing Gore for a bad race. It wasn't that bad.
And if the academic models treated him as an incumbent, it seems to me at least likely that their error in definition is to blame, not his failure to meet their expectations.
10089. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:54:43 PM
Nixon is dinged for running a terrible race. His counterpart is Gore. Kennedy's counterpart is Bush.
10090. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:56:40 PM
"If you don't accept "substantial margin" in the spirit intended, I cheerfully retract."
What spirit? You meant it in the spiring that a 90-89 basketball game was won by a "substantial margin," considering how "close" it was?
48.5 as compared to 49.5 equals 90-89.
A one point margin is "substantial" compared to what, precisely? Other one-point margins? Half-point margins? What?
I'm dumbfounded here. Give me something to work with.
With what set of assumptions can your statement be read as anything but hopelessly asinine?
"He won the popular vote by a more substantial margin than Kennedy did--someone who has never been dinged for running a bad race."
Kennedy lost the popular vote. Five of Georgia's twelve electors we cast in favor of a Dixiecrat candidate. Giving the Democratic votes in Georgia proportianately (5 per 12) to the Dixiecrat candidate who actually won those votes -- a fair assumption, it seems; those five electoral votes didn't come out of nowhere -- then Kennedy lost the 1960 popular vote by a slender margin.
Nevermind the horrible fraud in Chicago and Texas.
"The point, again, is that I see little merit in dissing Gore for a bad race. It wasn't that bad."
Not bad at all. In a race in which economic and historical factors predicted a 60% share of the vote, he managed 49.5%. Wowzers. What a stalwart.
"And if the academic models treated him as an incumbent, it seems to me at least likely that their error in definition is to blame, not his failure to meet their expectations."
Yes, yes. Just because the models work for VP Nixon and VP Bush, why should they be expected to work for VP Gore? He was a "special" VP.
A very "special" VP.
10091. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:58:44 PM
Using Ms. POM's logic (and again, I use that term advisedly):
Gore ran a very good campaign, considering how disasterous it was, and Gore was a strong candidate, considering how unappealing he was.
10092. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:59:21 PM
Indeed, Gore and Nixon both had poor debate showings (Nixon only in the initial and most watched contest; Gore in all three) and Nixon unwisely insisted on visiting all 50 states (precious time lost in those Hawaii and Alaska visits, including a late-night appearance in Anchorage less than 48 hours before the election) much as Gore foolishly insisted on not heeding warnings on Tennessee and West Virginia.
10093. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:00:45 PM
Francis,
Well, Gore should be so lucky if Nixon's outcome is in his future.
And while I agree that Nixon and Gore are analogous, the differences are pretty clear, too. Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count.
10094. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:01:31 PM
"much as Gore foolishly insisted on not heeding warnings on Tennessee and West Virginia."
Eh, let's give him a break on that point.
Consider: Certain states are in the category of "If we don't win THEM, we're losing in a landslide, so why bother?"
Who could have known?
10095. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:02:09 PM
"Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count.
Results?
Both lost.
10096. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:04:02 PM
"Gore should be so lucky if Nixon's outcome is in his future."
Sure. Resignation sounds spiffy.
"And while I agree that Nixon and Gore are analogous, the differences are pretty clear, too. Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count."
Nixon ran a really horrid race. Gore ran a horrid race.
10097. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:05:15 PM
Gore foolishly failed to recognize that two other centrist, Democrat technocrats, Carter (in the second term), and Dukakis, blew it by running a campaign that veered to the left.
10098. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:05:34 PM
Ace
Gore could have known, as his state parties and contacts were screaming at him "We are going to lose these states" at a time when many people were projecting the race to be a very narrow affair. Gore did not listen. He simply did not believe.
10099. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:07:54 PM
FU,
But you, astute political watcher you are, never predicted Bush wins in Tennessee & WV.
No one did. Not anyone I know of.
10100. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:09:40 PM
Ronski,
Everyone calls GWB the "Avenger" of his father's loss.
But I read a fascinating piece in the New Yorker. Gore was the true "Avenger." Gore ran pretty much on the same Southern-populist/liberal platform that his father would have run on.
Gore sought vindication for his father. We see the results of that.
10101. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:09:57 PM
Ace
It is true. I never predicted that Gore could possibly have done many dumb things he eventually did.
10102. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:10:31 PM
You still don't believe he's President, do you?
10103. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:13:15 PM
Sure. Resignation sounds spiffy.
After winning two elections? I'm figuring Gore could figure out how to avoid it. If nothing else, he could burn the tapes.
Nixon ran a really horrid race. Gore ran a horrid race.
I disagree with both. I think they both ran flawed races, but not horrid races. I do agree that Gore ran too far to the left--on the other hand, given that the other thing that did him in was Nader, it's hard to know what would have happened had he not run left.
Ace,
Re results: yes, they both lost. I thought (again) that we were beginning from that point. Comparing two losing campaigns, one can still say that so and so's results were better. There are other results than just the presidency (although you'll get no argument from me that this dwarfs any others).
10104. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/26/2001 5:13:31 PM
10105. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:14:09 PM
Ace,
I think that is true about Gore.
Anyone,
What is the appeal of Edwards to S. Carolinians and potentially to other Southerners? What kind of a campaign did he run to get his seat?
10106. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:15:41 PM
I'm not sure he appeals to S. Carolignians, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because he's from North Carolina.
10107. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:16:08 PM
I thought Edwards was from North Carolina?
10108. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:16:28 PM
Thanks.
10109. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:16:58 PM
Don't you feel so very small and stupid now, Ronski.
10110. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:17:36 PM
Still, how does any Democrat get elected in the South these days? I gather it is not as running as a leftist-populist.
10111. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:17:58 PM
Ace,
No.
10112. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:18:30 PM
Ronski
He ran against a fossil, Lauch Faircloth, and he is attractive, smart and deft.
10113. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:18:48 PM
You should.
Your really should.
10114. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:19:51 PM
Ace,
Nah. I knew the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, before it was cool.
10115. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:20:03 PM
He's also wealthy, and he collects bucketfulls of money from his trial lawyer friends, whose pain he most definitely feels.
10116. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:22:05 PM
Edwards was outspent by Faircloth by (cue Dr. Evil) ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
10117. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:24:08 PM
Is that so?
Well, you've got to spend at least half a million to negate the disadvantage of being named "Lausch," and another half million to negate also being named "Faircloth."
It's almost a porn name.
10118. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:24:27 PM
Of the $8.3 million spent by Edwards in his Senate race, $6 million was his own dough and $580,000 came from lawyers.
10119. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:24:58 PM
Ronski,
I would think that Dems are more able to run populist left in the south than they used to, since all the faux Dems are now Republicans. But I agree you're not going to get there by campaigning with Rengel or Boxer.
10120. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:25:19 PM
Faircloth, a wealthy hog farmer, spent $9.3 million. $1.7 million of it was his own dough.
10121. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:25:41 PM
Or even Rangel, for that matter.
10122. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:26:13 PM
I always forget the spelling.
10123. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:26:18 PM
FU,
How do you know things like that off the top of your head?
10124. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:28:31 PM
"I would think that Dems are more able to run populist left in the south than they used to"
Ummmmm, the fact that the south is now fairly solidly Republican would tend to argue against running more "populist left" in a statewide contest.
In a minority-majority Congressional seat, sure. In a statewide contest, no.
10125. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:29:08 PM
Ace
I knew the general facts off the top of my head (I know a lot of useless trivia about Senate races) but I have a book next to my desk called The Almanac of American Politics that contains the numbers.
10126. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:30:29 PM
Washington, D.C. - Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) today issued the following statement in response to former DNC Chair Beth Dozoretz's decision to assert her Fifth Amendment rights and not testify before the House Government Reform Committee in regard to the Marc Rich pardon investigation:
"The Committee has just been informed that Beth Dozoretz will exercise her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, and that she will refuse to testify on March 1, 2001. I am extremely disappointed. She now joins Denise Rich, who has already taken the Fifth. It is my hope that when she comes before the Committee on Thursday, she will change her mind and answer the Committee's questions. It is very troubling that Beth Dozoretz and Denise Rich, both close friends of former President Clinton who discussed the Rich pardon with him, would refuse to testify.
"Ever since former President Clinton issued a number of questionable pardons on January 20, 2001, he has said that the American people will understand that, when the facts come out, what he did was right. Unfortunately, the facts are not coming out. It is beginning to seem that the reason people aren't answering questions is because they are hiding something. This is unacceptable.
I'm sure it's all a coincidence, Congressman Burton.
10127. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:32:54 PM
What I like is that Burton is apparently going to call Mrs. Dozoretz anyway, and ask her questions anyway, and get her to invoke the Fifth Amendment a hundred times in response to very loaded questions.
10128. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:33:57 PM
Ohio, Jones:
Given the fact that two central figures are taking the Fifth, will you call once again for an "end to these silly investigations"?
10129. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:34:52 PM
Stuart Taylor on the Rich Pardon
10130. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:35:37 PM
You know my position.
Let's move on, poopstain.
10131. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:38:54 PM
Ace,
Ummmmm, the fact that the south is now fairly solidly Republican would tend to argue against running more "populist left" in a statewide contest.
All I meant was this: 20 years ago, "Southern Democrat" pretty much meant "Republican, except that's what Lincoln was." Southern Dems these days are pretty recognizably Dems.
10132. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:41:23 PM
Monday, Feb. 26, 2001 1:56 p.m. EST
Hillary Took Cash From Hugh Rodham's Pardon Client
A client of ex-first brother-in-law Hugh Rodham, who sought a presidential pardon for herself and her husband in January, donated $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed Monday.
What's more, Rodham's client made the donation on Nov. 27, 2000 - nearly a month after the election was over.
Nora Lum and her husband Gene pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations in 1997 after making illegal donations to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. The Lums were also suspected of funneling thousands of dollars to the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, using his son Michael as a conduit.
Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign accepted the Lums' money despite their previous guilty plea.
Though neither Lum received a pardon, the contribution raises questions about whether Hugh Rodham recommended that his clients donate to his sister's Senate campaign - as well as the donation's curious timing.
"Why would Nora Lum, a convicted felon, give money to Hillary almost a month after her landslide Senate victory?" asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Good question.
10133. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:42:51 PM
Is that normal?
10134. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:44:59 PM
Ho-fucking-boy.
Get this: Marc Rich's biographer says that Marc Rich and his associates used two code-words when speaking of bribes to government officials (in both the US and abroad).
One code-word was "chocalates." As in, "Let's give him some more chocolates."
Another code-word was, ummmm...
..."Prayer."
As in: "We've got to keep on PRAYING."
Which is funny. Because Bill Clinton's e-mail to Beth Dozoretz stated that he was working on "turning around the WH counsels" on the Rich pardon, but that they'd all need to "keep praying."
Um.
Uh.
Errrr...
But I'm quite sure this is just a coincidence. And I'm sure that Marc Rich's biographer, who wrote the biography in the mid-eighties, stuck this little factoid in to "get Clinton" fifteen years later.
10135. concerned - 2/26/2001 6:17:25 PM
10136. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 6:45:45 PM
Ace- It muts be fun creating your own reality. Find one, just one post where I suggested that the investigation into Clinton's pardon of Rich stop.
But go ahead and gloat anyway, since you so rarely have the chance to do it when you are correct.
10137. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 6:51:24 PM
Concerned- Was it worth having such partisan hackery by Kathleen Harris, the big lie campaign about recounts,and turning out the supreme court like project ho's when simply counting the votes would have got your party in office?
Too bad that the playing field is now set for bald partisanship and fraud in the next elections. Perhaps you shouldn't have lowered the bar.
10138. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2001 7:10:56 PM
But you, astute political watcher you are, never predicted Bush wins in Tennessee & WV.
No one did. Not anyone I know of.
Ace: I beg to differ.
<smirk>
I said long before it became fashionable that Gore would lose Tennessee. Franky should remember it because it was when he was doing one of his EV lists and saying there was no way Bush could win. He then went ecstatic at the prospect Gore might be denied the White House were that to happen.
As for West Virginia, I didn't "predict" that, but if you recall, in one of our discussions I told you that one reason I thought Bush would win was that Gore had to win all the "loose cannon" states, and that one of them was likely to not cooperate.
But Tennessee I was virtually certain about all along. Here and at TableTalk. Clinton-Gore barely carried it in '96, the governor and both senators are all Republicans with big wins in their last elections. It's a Republican state.
My personal surprises: That Tennessee was even as close as it was, New Mexico, and the contesting of Florida. I thought it would be a close race there, but no one could have predicted it would be settled in the courts, though all modesty aside, I did mention as a *wild scenario* the possibility of a recount somewhere in the country flip-flopping the election.
10139. wonkers2 - 2/26/2001 7:13:11 PM
I'm surprised Ace & Concerned haven't suggested that Ms.Rich and Ms. Dozoretz may have accommodated hizzoner in ways possibly more effective and plausible than financial bribes in which he has never shown the slightest interest.
10140. Fielding - 2/26/2001 7:42:42 PM
Ace:
"Everyone calls GWB the "Avenger" of his father's loss.
But I read a fascinating piece in the New Yorker. Gore was the true "Avenger." Gore ran pretty much on the same Southern-populist/liberal platform that his father would have run on.
Gore sought vindication for his father. We see the results of that."
This is true. I don't think that Gore is nearly as liberal as his dad, but no doubt Gore thinks he is.
10141. concerned - 2/26/2001 7:55:54 PM
Re. 10139 -
Guess you got there first, Wonkers:)
10142. wonkers2 - 2/26/2001 8:04:52 PM
Ha! But think about it! Denise beats Monica in several ways I can think of. Haven't seen a picture of Ms. Dozoretz. Menage a trois anyone?
10143. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:38:53 PM
> OLD FLORIDA VOTE TOTAL: BUSH +537
> Orlando Sentinel Review (17 counties):
> Gore +582
> Palm Beach Post Review (1 county): Gore
> +682
> Palm Beach County Election Board: Gore
> +174
> Miami Herald Review (1 county): Gore +49
> Tampa Tribune Review (1 county): Gore
> +120
> _____________________________________________
> ___________________
> NEW FLORIDA VOTE TOTAL: GORE +1,070
>
>
10144. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:44:06 PM
10145. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:46:33 PM
10146. joezan - 2/26/2001 11:36:13 PM
10147. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 1:55:39 AM
10148. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2001 7:02:13 AM
Message # 10134: Code words? Hee hee hee . . .
10149. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2001 7:06:01 AM
How many times did Denise Rich visit the White House?
It was over a hundred (NewsMax, AceofSpaces)
Then it was "up to a hundred", most or all in the "last one or two years" of the Clinton presidency (Congressman Dan Burton, Sunday morning)
Now it's down to less than 20 over eight years (today's papers).
Amazon.com's stock price is more stable than this number.
10150. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 8:05:50 AM
Let's get the Secret Service records. That should answer the questions. Ohio.
That 20 number might just have been the number of solo late night visits of the praying songwriter
Big news last night on ABC was that Denise Rich and Democratic fund raiser Beth Dozeoretz did a threesome with Bill Clinton his last night in the White House to thank him for the pardon.
Both women have taken the Fifth on Clinton's penis size.
10151. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 8:44:00 AM
Another example of classic Mafia tactics:
"Bill Clinton, while president, called the head of CBS to help his friends the Thomasons, who were embroiled in a billing dispute with the network, people in the entertainment industry said. Shortly thereafter, CBS sent a $1 million payment to the TV producers for an aborted comedy series."---front page, Wall Street Journal.
Let's see if Dan Rather covers this story...
10152. wonkers2 - 2/27/2001 9:21:26 AM
NYT--Secret Service records show that Denise rich and Beth Dozoretz visited the White House on the evening of jan 19, a few hours before Bill Clinton decided to issue a pardon to the fugitive commodities trader Marc rich, lawyers familiar with the case said today....
The records showed that Ms. Dozoretz entered the executive mansion at 5:29pm and that Ms. rich entered at 5:30 pm, the lawyers said. The records showed that the two women were cleared to enter the residential area of the White House but do not indicate when they left.
The records also showed that Ms. rich visited the White House 13 to 19 times during Mr. Clinton's presidency, while Ms. Dozoretz visited 76 times in the last two years.
Congressional investigators would like to question Ms. Dozoretz, a former top Democratic fund-raiser, about the visits. But she said today that she would refuse to testify, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Jack Quinn, insisted that the case for the pardon was made on the legal merits.
"I never asked Ms. Dozoretz to talk to the president about this in a fund-raising capacity...On the contrary, I emphasized to Ms. Dozoretz that this case could and must be made on the merits. She did not have to be convinced of that."
[From the photo accompanying the article, Ms.Dozoretz appears to be a quite attractive lady in her 40s, much more attractive than Ms.Lewinsky.]
10153. Ronski - 2/27/2001 9:38:42 AM
10154. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 9:57:45 AM
Log Cabin Repugs aren't gay; they're confused.
The Bush Pardons
Considering his original offense, it was ironic that Hammer won what he called the "vindication" of a presidential pardon only months after he poured well over $100,000 into Republican Party coffers, and another $100,000 into the accounts of the Bush-Quayle Inaugural committee. (In author Edward Jay Epstein's excellent biography of the oilman, there is a photograph of Hammer, his girlfriend and President Bush together at the White House in April 1990. Such visits were perks for members of Bush's "Team 100," as the GOP's most generous donors were known.)
10155. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:03:01 AM
An even more dubious case than Hammer's also reached Bush's desk during the first year of his presidency. In 1989, prominent Cuban-Americans in Florida began agitating for the release of Orlando Bosch, a notorious anti-Castro terrorist then serving a prison term for entering the United States illegally. American intelligence and law enforcement authorities firmly believed that Bosch was responsible for far worse actions, including the 1976 explosion that brought down a Cuban airliner, killing all 76 civilians aboard, though Venezuelan prosecutors had failed to convict him of that terrible crime. There was certainly no question that Bosch was an advocate of terror and had been involved in numerous bombings.
The Justice Department wanted to deport Bosch because, according to the FBI, he had "repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death." Freeing Bosch at a time when Washington was condemning terrorism abroad would obviously be hard to explain -- had someone asked.
10156. Ronski - 2/27/2001 10:05:30 AM
More anti-gay slander from the left, I see. I expect we'll be treated to some of Clinton's and Kerrey's favorite lesbian jokes posted any minute now.
10157. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:15:18 AM
Yes, Ronski. Dems baaaaad. Repugs good.
Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft have always been champions of gay rights.
10158. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:25:26 AM
NannyJade knows best.
She divines who is a good gay and who is a baaaaad gay. She can tell you who the good blacks are, and who are baaaaaad blacks.
Thank goodness for Jade. Otherwise, what would all those confused gays and blacks do?
Good to see the consummate Democrat revaling her true feelinsg for these oppressed minority groups.
Chattel.
Git' along, little Ronski. Git' along.
10159. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:29:24 AM
No, I'm agreeing with you, Niner.
The Repug attitude toward gays has always been exemplary. They've always championed gay rights.
10160. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:31:40 AM
No, no. I'm agreeing with you, Jade.
For God's sake, don't let them make up their own mind. They're like children. If they stray off the reservation, you whip them back into line.
10161. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:32:41 AM
In fact, the Repugs refuse the support of groups who might denigrate gays.
It is the teaching of their benevolent spiritual leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that guide Repugs to their tolerant stances toward alternative lifestyles.
10162. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:37:35 AM
Vote!
*Thwack*
Don't think, coolie.
*Thwack*
Vote!
*Thwack*
10163. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:42:21 AM
And the Repugs have been instrumental in furthering acceptance of alternative lifestyles into society. They never speak about "gay agendas" or "special rights."
10164. CalGal - 2/27/2001 10:44:04 AM
There's actually no more reason for blue collar voters to go Republican than there is gays--in fact, well-off gays are probably better off voting for Republicans. The Dems will take their taxes and vote in DOMA.
10165. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:49:08 AM
Sure. Wealthy gays should vote Repug.
After all, being rich more than makes up for not having a full set of civil rights.
10166. CalGal - 2/27/2001 10:52:07 AM
Wealthy gays have all the civil rights they can buy.
10167. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:53:55 AM
Sure, ValGal.
They shop for them in the Rights Section of IKEA.
10168. ranheim - 2/27/2001 1:29:35 PM
No matter on which side of the tax reduction bill you find yourself, you may be interested in this quote : "It is a general maxim that all governments find use for as much money as they can raise. Indeed, they have commonly demands for more ... I take this as a settled truth, that they will all spend as much as their revenue; that is, will live up to their income."
A recent fiscal conservative? No. I had never heard of the man. A James Smith of Mass. during the debate as to whether Mass. would ratify the Constitution - or not. Late 1780s!!
10169. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 2:38:40 PM
Bush Approval Numbers Slide To Lowest Point Since Dwight Eisenhower
10170. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:06:12 PM
A fresh new sighting of the "non-existant," no make that "conceptual phase," no make that "moving target experimental phase" rail gun:
US scientists take aim with fastest gun in West
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)
February 27, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: Pg. 08
LENGTH: 286 words
HEADLINE: US scientists take aim with fastest gun in West
BYLINE: By Robert Uhlig Technology Correspondent
BODY:
A GUN that fires coin-size pellets 10 times faster than a bullet has been developed in America.The Z accelerator could fire a pellet from London to Edinburgh in 26 seconds, or from London to New York in four and a half minutes. It is outpaced only by a nuclear explosion.
It has been nicknamed the "fastest gun in the West". Marcus Knudson, who led the project to develop the Z accelerator at Sandia, an American nuclear laboratory, said that description was an understatement. "It's the fastest gun in the world."
The aluminium plates it fires move so fast that the air resistance turns them to liquid, heating them to 2,700C, and forcing Dr Knudson to look at other materials, such as titanium and copper.
It has been used only to examine the effect of high-velocity projectile impacts over a distance of a few feet, but the technology is being considered as an alternative to launching spacecraft.
A more mobile version could be a "hyper velocity" weapon, piercing thicker armour than any used in battle, Dr Knudson added.
The accelerator's vacuum chamber is the most powerful producer of electrical discharge on Earth.
It uses 20,000 amps to develop a magnetic field that accelerates pellets up to 45,000 mph in 200 billionths of a second, three times faster than the speed needed to escape Earth's gravitational pull.
10171. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:12:11 PM
Not a rail gun, Spaz.
Nice try, though.
The weapon you cite is quite interesting; it can destroy targets several inches away.
10172. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:21:54 PM
IS a rail gun, moron.
Please define "rail gun" for the group.
10173. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:26:53 PM
Jadetard reasoning:
From this --
"It has been used only to examine the effect of high-velocity projectile impacts over a distance of a few feet"
She deduces this --
"The weapon you cite is quite interesting; it can destroy targets several inches away."
Yes, Jadetard, I'm sure a projectile travelling at ten times the speed of a bullet just stops a few feet away. It "runs out of gas," I guess.
No, Jadetard. It is being used to study the effects of high-impact collisions; thus, the scientists hit things a few feet away, rather than several miles away. Because most laboratories aren't several miles long, you see.
10174. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:28:55 PM
The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side. The projectile completes the circuit.
As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction.
10175. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:32:30 PM
Spaz:
What you are describing is an accelerator--which has been around for years.
Rail guns have also been around for years. Hobbyists make them. They just aren't in development as military weapons.
Sorry.
10176. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:32:52 PM
The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side. The projectile completes the circuit.
This is a nice bluff. Yes, "power" and "magnetism" are involved, which is quite evident from the article itself. In order to appear knowlegeable, Jade takes a few guesses which have the verismilitude of specificity (my god, she even knows that one side is + and the other - !), but are quite wrong.
"As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction. "
Ah. "In theory."
At any rate, Jadetard, please explain why the gun in question is not a "rail gun."
10177. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:39:22 PM
Jadetard,
All "accelerators" use magnetic-field inducing "rails" along the sides of the acceleration tube to speed things on their way.
Rail gun = electromagnetic accelerator
"Rail gun" is just a name for such an accelerator used as a weapon.
10178. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:43:50 PM
Have I staked out an untenable position?
Perhaps. I confess I know precios little about rail guns or accelerators.
One thing I am sure of, however, is that Jadetard knows even less, and is an obnoxious, swinish bluffer.
I know I am right, because I'm sure that Jadetard is wrong. It is always wrong, and it is always bluffing and posturing.
10179. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:44:23 PM
Spaz:
The "in theory" part refers to the direction of the projectile which depends on a number of factors such as conductivity of the projectile, direction of the current, friction, air resistance, etc. Additionally, changes in voltage and magnetic flux will adversely affect the movement of the projectile.
Your cite involves an accelerator which is simply two very large electro-magnets which force a projectile though a tunnel, tube, or barrel.
10180. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2001 4:44:48 PM
10181. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:46:15 PM
Correction to the above.
The accelerator may incorporate two or more large electro-magnets.
10182. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:47:12 PM
'Your cite involves an accelerator which is simply two very large electro-magnets which force a projectile though a tunnel, tube, or barrel."
Which is a rail gun.
Wizard of Idiocy:
How about that $100 million dollar tax cut Clinton bequeathed Marc Rich? I suppose you endorse that, yes?
Tax cuts for the rich, connected, corrupt friends of Bill ... all others can pound sand.
10183. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:50:11 PM
"to the direction of the projectile which depends on a number of factors such as conductivity of the projectile, direction of the current, friction, air resistance, etc. Additionally, changes in voltage and magnetic flux will adversely affect the movement of the projectile."
What a bluffer.
Wow. Nice laundry list. You really think that friction AND air resistance (NOTE TO the moron: Air resistance IS friction) might be a factor?
Wow. You really are knowledgeable on this subject. Friction and air resistance can affect a projectile. You knew that. There's no denying you knew that. I guess that proves you know what you're talking about.
Jadetard, do you imagine that the power of the magnetic field can also affect the speed of the projectile? How about the mass of the projectile? I'm guessing "Yes," but I will await your expert analysis.
10184. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:52:02 PM
Jadetard,
In theory, gunpowder can propel a projectile down a tube in a certain direction, subject to the vaguaries of friction and air resistance.
In theory, you understand. In THEORY.
10185. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:55:57 PM
Spaz:
Your untenable position stems largely from being ignorant as sin.
Allow me to enlighten you. I know for a fact the US military looks at many potential weapons systems. Most of them never make it off the drawing board. NRL has looked at a rail gun but the technology is not mature enough to develop into a full-scale acquisition program.
The current problem with rail guns is largely one of power; we don't have large enough capacitors to store the massive amounts of power needed and we can't generate the power needed in a quick and efficient (fast, high power, low rise time pulses) manner. Impedance is a major problem as well.
10186. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2001 4:56:39 PM
AceofSpayed-
No I don’t endorse anything Clinton did.
I just can’t abide sanctimonous hate and greedmongers!
10187. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2001 4:59:13 PM
It's amazing how similar Jade's comments are to the first hit on Google when "rail gun" is entered as a search term.
Jade: The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side.
Google: A rail gun in it's simplest form is a pair of conducting rails separated by a distance L and with one rail connected to the positive and one the negative side of a power source supplying voltage V and current I.
Jade: The projectile completes the circuit.
Google: A conducting projectile bridges the gap L between the rails, completing the electrical circuit.
Jade: As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction."
Google: As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field B is generated with an orientation dictated by the right hand rule.
Note: Could it be that since Jade probably didn't understand how "the right hand rule" dictated orientation, it was replace with the vaguery "a certain direction" and "in theory"?
10188. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:59:40 PM
Air resistance is friction, Spaz. However, in a rail gun you have several sources of friction: air resistance and the movement of the projectile down the rails.
Your ignorance is showing, Spaz.
BTW, do you know how large these accelerators are?
10189. jonesatlaw - 2/27/2001 5:01:11 PM
Ace-Jade- Isn't the difference between an accelerator and a rail gun the existence of sequential pulses by a series of electromagnets versus, and single pulse?
10190. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:04:38 PM
Link to Sandia Z Accelerator
Try putting one of these on a ship or a tank.
10191. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:11:22 PM
jonesatlaw:
Not necessarily.
An accelerator or a rail gun could, in theory, both use multiple pulses. The rail gun would use a single electro-magnet since the rails form the magnetic field. An accelerator uses multiple electro-magnets surrounding a tube or tunnel.
Particle beam weapon (PBW) technology uses a single pulse energy release.
10192. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:12:33 PM
IJ:
It's an electrical thing.
You wouldn't understand.
10193. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:15:20 PM
BTW, IJ, I'm amused by your interjection of the "right hand rule."
You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?
Just checking.
10194. robertjayb - 2/27/2001 5:24:08 PM
Kerrey continues tuning up for '04...
NEW YORK (AP) -Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a onetime
presidential candidate and now head of New School University, said
Tuesday he wouldn't rule out another run for the White House.
``Saying never is not a good idea,'' he said at a meeting of the
New York Press Club. ``It's a possibility. I think, though, what
has to happen is, I've really got to want to be president, and that
hasn't happened yet.''
Kerrey, a Democrat, left the Senate to become president of the
New School, a job he officially began last week. He ran for
president against Bill Clinton in 1992 and has since been royally pissed off.
10195. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2001 5:34:15 PM
You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?
Jade: Unlike you, I make no pretensions about this subject. But from a quick scan of the article you plagiarized, I seem to recall the right hand as merely being a mnemonic. Is that what you mean by "convention," but you don't wish to use the word "mnemonic" for fear of further demonstrating your plagiarism?
10196. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:45:04 PM
"I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese—that meant that they weren't very effective."—White House press conference, Washington, D.C., Feb. 22, 2001
10197. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 5:48:50 PM
Wiz - I just can’t abide sanctimonous hate and greedmongers!
Since you are a sanctimonious hate and greedmonger, you must be a frequent consumer of psych services.
10198. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:50:51 PM
11/27/00 Certified by Katherine Harris -537
12/8/00 Florida Supreme Court ruling +383 -154
12/18/00 Lake County manual recount +130 - 24
12/19/00 Broward manual recount +164 +140
12/29/00 Hernando manual recount +4 +144
12/30/00 Hillsborough manual recount +120 +264
1/3/01 Gadsden manual recount +40 +304
1/14/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #1
(minus prior recount included in 12/8)
-6
+11
-209 +100
1/20/01 Collier manual recount -226 -126
1/27/01 Palm Beach manual recount +682 +556
1/28/01 15 County manual recount (minus prior recounts in Lake and Gadsden) +366
-170 +752
2/10/01 Orange manual recount +203 +955
2/15/01 Seminole manual recount +13 +968
2/26/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #2 +49 +1017
Total Gore Gain from Recounts +1554
10199. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:51:29 PM
1/28/01 Analysis of overvotes in 8 counties by the Washington Post +28,510 +28,510
1/28/01 Analysis of overvotes in 15 counties by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel +944 +29,454
10200. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:52:06 PM
So what is that thing that is addressing the Congress this evening?
10201. Jenerator - 2/27/2001 5:54:48 PM
*Your* president.
If you don't like it, pack up Jade and yourself and move to Europe with Alec Baldwin. Please.
10202. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 5:58:24 PM
Jex - You are in desperate need of lessons on election law and simple arithmetic.
10207. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 6:04:33 PM
Like Louie, Louie, the racist who killed Malcolm X, is Jexster still into his numbers thing?
So sad. Didn't he read the newspaper yesterday, even the liberal Miami Herald/USA TODAY say that Bush won.
Close race, 4sure. But Bush won fair and square.
Fair and square. Pretty much like W is now that he met his good wife, and his crazy days are behind him.
10208. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 6:06:31 PM
Jex - Bush received more votes in Florida. Recounting the most heavily Democratic counties in Florida in response to Gore's challenge would still have given Bush more votes. What part of this do you not understand?
10209. CalGal - 2/27/2001 6:22:35 PM
Jex--check Tech for the bad news on geocities images.
10210. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:00:57 PM
Tacky Democrats. They're booing the Supreme Court right now in our House of Representatives.
10211. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:08:41 PM
Isn't it great to see Dick Cheney sitting in the VP chair behind the president?
It's going to be a terrific speech.
10212. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:10:18 PM
The applause is tremendous. The people love their new leader.
10213. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 10:02:22 PM
The best speech in a generation. First half was "compassion." Second half was "conservative."
10214. JudithAtHome - 2/27/2001 10:04:33 PM
I'd give him a C+...but hardly the best of a generation.
10216. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:10:34 PM
INCOME GAINS AT TOP FAR OUTPACE GAINS FOR
REST OF POPULATION, LATEST IRS DATA SHOW
Top 1% of Tax Filers Gain $69,000 Apiece in 1998 Alone
New Internal Revenue Service data indicate that the after-tax income of the top one percent of tax filers jumped by $69,000 in 1998 alone and has grown 40 percent since 1989. The pace of this income growth was eight times faster than that of the bottom 90 percent of the population over the 1989-1998 period, according to an analysis of these data issued today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington D.C. policy institute.
HTML Of Full Report
10217. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:12:40 PM
Just what they need a freakin tax cut.
10218. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:14:53 PM
Bad news indeed Cal......our Wiz is on Geocities!
I need my Wiz...I want to Wiz!
10219. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:16:27 PM
Rose...
You must be a flak for travel agents or somethin similar....
Carnival Cruise DC rep maybe?
10220. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 10:21:17 PM
Democrats' response is very, very weak. They look tired.
But best quote was from the guy with no eyebrows saying: (paraphrase)
"We are like a lot of wild
spiders crying together,
but without tears.
10221. JudithAtHome - 2/27/2001 10:28:34 PM
LSD, anyone?
10222. Autodaffy - 2/27/2001 10:35:49 PM
W. get me my refund!
Judging from the begrudging respect that Dan Rather accorded the performance, the the dems can be said to be in "pleine deroute."
10223. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:10:20 PM
"... the after-tax income of the top one percent of tax filers [...] has grown 40 percent since 1989."
My gosh, Jex, you're right! The nerve of these people, hoping to get away with pocketing almost 4% more every year. There oughta be a law.
10224. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:16:19 PM
I loved the composite FL tallies, too, BTW.
Three men standing side by side are asked to estimate how far away some tree is. The first one says, "Oh, about 90 yards." The second, "I'd say, 100." The third, "More like 110."
Jex's brilliant conclusion would surely be that the distance is 300 yards.
10225. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 11:21:30 PM
Stumbo - I was wondering if anyone noticed Jex's double and triple counting. I just figured no one was reading his drivel.
10226. Autodaffy - 2/27/2001 11:28:04 PM
Jexter is the dumbest sob I have seen in a long time. He is entirely apt, as a dem supporter.
10227. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:33:42 PM
JJ:
Well, color me pathetic, but I still sometimes do. I'll try to work on alternate forms of fish-in-a-barrel-shooting, though.
10228. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 11:41:26 PM
Stumbo - I must confess that I will on occasion read his shorter posts just for the entertainment value. I figure he must work so hard to build up all that hate and anger, it would be ungentlemanly for me not laugh my ass off at him.
10229. joezan - 2/28/2001 12:02:33 AM
The sad thing is, he's not alone. Yesterday, I announced to my demo buddies at work the results of the Miami Herald re-count, and they all had to gather around a PC and go online to see if it was really true - they thought I was joking.
So, now their new "outrage" is this: GWB put the entire nation through hell (needlessly, as it turns out) for over a month, and further created a constitutional crisis by taking the case to the SC.
They will "never be able to respect him for that".
10230. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:16:19 AM
"You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?"
Ummmmm... no. The "right hand rule" is a fact, not a "convention."
Do you even know what the right hand rule is, Jade?
10231. jonesatlaw - 2/28/2001 1:23:03 AM
Ace- I was waiting with baited breath for your example of a post where I advocated halting any investigation into Clinton and the pardons. Perhaps you missed it.
10232. jonesatlaw - 2/28/2001 1:52:07 AM
Or perhpas there isn't one. I'll check on your progress tommorrow.
10233. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2001 7:36:06 AM
Jones...
Is "baited" breath what a fisherman has as he is reeling in his catch?:-)
10234. joezan - 2/28/2001 7:54:04 AM
Judith:
It's much too early - go back to bed.
10235. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 7:56:53 AM
Judith:
An observation.
You show your insecurity of what is funny by using your smily faces whenever you tell jokes.
Example, the above was witty but the smile ruins it.
10236. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2001 8:17:27 AM
Rosetta, you show your intelligence with every post you make; your name above your post ruins it. Very few people take the time to hound you about your misspellings, inanities, and plagarism...if you can't abide a smiley face, then skip over it. (And if you're going to criticize me, be original instead of resorting to cazartisms.)
And joezan, I'm gone for the day so this was a one shot deal...
10237. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 8:32:31 AM
Jex's 10203 - 10206 were deleted due to the pics not showing up.
Jex's 10215 was deleted due to it being a dup of 10216
10238. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:46:03 AM
CONGRATS. Get into into it BIG TIME, rubber.
There are hundreds of Jexster's posts that are duplicates.
10239. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 9:28:18 AM
Ummmmm... no. The "right hand rule" is a fact, not a "convention."
Ummmm....no. The right hand rule, or Fleming's Rule, is a convention, Spaz.
Do you have any earthly idea what a convention is?
Hint: It's not a hall full of people with funny hats waving signs.
10240. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:45:29 AM
Judith - I'd give him a C+...
That is high praise coming from you.
10241. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:57:13 AM
Jade - Here is a site about the right hand rule. Which definition of "convention" do you believe applies to this?
10242. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:07:04 AM
Wiener:
Do you understand what a convention is?
10243. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:14:45 AM
JJ,
I have a question for you in the Arts and Music thread.
10244. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:29:36 AM
In response to the engineering-challenged, such as Spaz, IJ, and Wiener, a convention is a consensus used by scientists and engineers to describe a principle or phenomena that necessarily isn't based on fact.
The right hand rule is based on such a convention.
Anyone capable of identifying it?
10245. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:34:08 AM
Fraank - Check A&M.
10246. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 11:39:12 AM
The right hand rule is based on such a convention.
Anyone capable of identifying it?
Jade: I'll give it a shot.
First, form a fist. Now raise the middle finger of said fist. Finally, look at yourself in the mirror.
That's the "conventional" response known as the Middle Finger Rule that most Motiers apply to your posts.
10247. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:42:39 AM
Jade - a convention is a consensus used by scientists and engineers to describe a principle or phenomena that necessarily isn't based on fact.
I understand what a convention is. I don't see how it applies to the right hand rule. The relationship between a charge, the magnetic field and the magnetic force is a fact. The right hand rule merely describes that fact. Are you claiming that there is a convention among scientists to use the right hand rule to describe this relationship? If so that is different that claiming the right hand rule is itself a convention.
10248. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:43:09 AM
IJ:
Demonstrating your ignorance again?
The question's not hard, it's High School Physics.
10249. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:48:13 AM
Wiener:
Think about the magnetic field. Is the "direction" of the magnetic field accurate?
10250. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:03:37 PM
Shrub's first stop on his budget sham tour is in Beaver PA, west of Pittsburgh. Citizens For Legitimate Government will be there to remind the public that Bush not only has no mandate to enact his agenda, he was not elected, and
has no legitimate right to rule in a democratic nation. Be there if you can!
Details
10251. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:04:34 PM
Shrub will be visiting North Little Rock's Lakewood Elementary School on Thursday to brainwash Americans into supporting his plan to shut down our public schools and force our kids into parochial schools. Democrats.com members will be there to remind him that he is only the "Commander in Thief." To participate, mailto:BaddogReturns@hotmail.com
10252. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:05:40 PM
According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, Bush's 55% job approval rating is the LOWEST of any new President in 50 YEARS. At the start of their terms, Clinton's approval was 63%, and Poppy's was 76%. Considering the absolutely fawning coverage BOTUS has received from the media, we're astonished his ratings are so low. Now the Post tells us that all of Bush's pet projects are in trouble - tax cuts for the wealthy, evangelical pork, the aristocracy restoration act (abolishing the estate tax),
10253. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:07:24 PM
Bush's SS Plan: Appoint A Commish...Waste Now...Bankruptcy Later
10254. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:09:00 PM
BOTUS Wingnut Legislative Program in Deep Doo [W.Post]
10255. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 12:35:47 PM
Poopstain, I say.
10256. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 12:45:26 PM
Is anyone aware of any intermarriage between cousins or close relations in the Bush family tree?
Curious George's eyes are terribly close together.
10257. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:11:10 PM
You mean Gore was beat by an inbred?
Damn.
10258. glendajean - 2/28/2001 1:12:17 PM
You mean Gore was beat by an inbred?
You shouldn't talk about the Supreme Court like that.
10259. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:12:22 PM
"Hey, Al, how you doin'?"
"Ah, not so good."
"Why?"
"I got beat in three debates."
"Hey, well, you can't win them all."
"Yea, but I lost all three to an inbred."
"Er . . . wow .. . sorry dude."
10260. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:12:46 PM
Gore didn't lose, Niner.
You know that.
10261. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:13:44 PM
glenda
I hear Thomas is the illegitimate child of Souter and Ginsburg, but I don't put much stock in rumors (unless they involve a Clinton-Rich-Dozortez threesome).
10262. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:14:35 PM
Jade
Yep. Gore is a winner like Kerry Collins is goin' to Disneyworld.
10263. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 1:17:56 PM
Dumbness Is A Virtue:
The Walter Shapiro column in today's USA Today reviews last night's State of the Union Message and contrasts former President Bill Clinton (bad!) with President George W. Bush (good!):
"After eight years of . . . a high-wire act in which the president regarded every appearance before Congress as an opportunity to creatively ad-lib his way through a speech text, we now have the soothing opposite to Bill Clinton. George W. Bush demonstrated Tuesday night in a well-argued and adequately delivered speech to a joint session that he is the no-surprises president.
"Virtually everything went as scripted. . . . Rather than depending on charisma or eloquence, Bush was out to show that discipline and determination are what it takes to be a successful president."
The President was out to show "discipline and determination" by clinging to every word of his prepared text? Uh-huh. I'm sure the fear that the new President would refer to the "State of the Onion" had nothing to do with this strategy.
10264. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 1:19:25 PM
And having the intelligence to extemporize is surely something we don't want in a President.
10265. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:23:05 PM
Anyone notice how Jadetard just keeps bluffing?
Rather than simply answer the question and explain precisely how the right-hand rule -- a mnemonic created for describing the inalaterable, factual relationship between direction of current flow and the direction of force of the resultant magnetic field -- is not a "fact" but a mere "convention," Jadetard chooses not to.
She could explain what she meant -- IF she knew what the fuck she was talking about -- in two sentences.
But she doesn't, so she can't.
So she simply keeps bluffing. Rather than answer a question, she just keeps merrily hoping to scare people off with the posture that she knows more than anyone else.
Asked--
"How is this a convention, Jade?"
She responds not by answering, but by avoiding the question:
"Do you even know what a convention is?"
What an obnoxious prick. She should be banned.
10266. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:35:53 PM
Spaz:
I answered the question you could not. I've now provided a very large clue as to the convention associated with Fleming's Rule.
Can I make it simpler for you?
I'm rapidly revising my opinion of third-tier colleges.
10267. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:37:38 PM
Oh, a fucking clue. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
Jadetard, why can't you just answer the fucking question?
10268. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:44:38 PM
Think of it as the Socratic Method, Spaz.
You'll learn more if you discover as opposed to being given the answer.
10269. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:48:49 PM
Ohhhhh, okay, Jadetard.
Is Google not providing you the answers?
10270. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:50:58 PM
Think, Spaz. Think magnetic fields.
You did graduate from that third-tier school, didn't you?
10271. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:55:31 PM
Perhaps it's a "moving target convention."
Think Spiro Agnew, Jadetard.
And then think on this:
Instant Reaction: Speech Viewers Give Bush High Marks
Half of audience is Republican
by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted immediately after President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday evening, shows that most viewers reacted very positively to the speech, believe that the president is leading the country in the right direction, feel confident in his abilities to carry out his duties as president, generally support the proposals he outlined and specifically support his tax cuts.
Viewers also give strong endorsement to the proposals he presented for dealing with Social Security. On the other hand, only about a fifth of viewers indicate that the tax cuts should be a top priority for the Bush administration, and most expect that Bush's tax cut proposal would cause their taxes to go down a little rather than a lot.
10272. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:56:34 PM
The poll was conducted among 399 viewers who had been called February 25-26 and indicated that they would be watching the speech. The poll shows that partisans of the president were more likely to watch than those of a different party orientation, as about half of the sample -- 49% -- consisted of Republicans, 23% independents, and 28% Democrats. In 1999, when Gallup conducted a similar one-night poll of Americans who watched President Clinton's state of the union speech, the partisanship of viewers was also skewed toward the president, although not quite as strongly. Overall, 40% of the viewers that year were Democrats, 32% independent, and 25% Republican.
On Tuesday evening, more than nine viewers in ten -- 92% -- said they felt positive about Bush's speech, with 66% saying "very" positive. In 1999, the positive reaction to Clinton was somewhat lower, as 83% expressed positive feelings, with 56% saying "very" positive.
Even before his speech, most viewers on Tuesday evening gave high marks to Bush, but after the speech the ratings were even higher. More than eight in ten viewers -- 84% -- said he was leading the country in the right direction, up from 73% who said that in the two days before the speech, and 86% said they felt either very or somewhat confident in his abilities to carry out his duties as president -- up from 81% who said before the speech. In 1994 and 1995, Clinton received similar ratings on moving the country in the right direction after he finished his speech, although his pre-speech ratings were lower than Bush's.
10273. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:58:03 PM
The poll also shows that like the American public in general, few viewers indicate that the tax cuts should be a top priority for the Bush administration. Overall, 22% said it should be a top priority, and another 61% a high priority. [Note: Hee, hee. "Only" 22% think it should be a top priority, but 61% think it should be a high priority. I'll take it-- that's 83% saying it is either a top or high priority.]
10274. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:59:12 PM
Last January, a poll of the general public showed 26% of Americans saying federal tax cuts should be a top priority and 39% a high priority, but that ranked the issue 13th out of 14 issues mentioned in the poll. One reason for the relatively low priority of the issue may be that few viewers expect to benefit greatly from the program. Overall, 13% said they expected their taxes would go down a lot, while 69% said a little, and 15% said not at all.
Reactions to Bush's speech and proposals were clearly partisan, although even majorities of Democrats gave positive ratings to the president after his speech on most of the items. Democrats and independents were more likely to be swayed by what Bush said during the presentation than were Republicans, who already gave overwhelmingly support to the president and his proposals. efore the speech, for example, Democratic viewers opposed Bush's tax cuts by 59% to 28%, but after the speech they were evenly divided -- with 49% in favor and 48% opposed.
10275. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:03:43 PM
By comparison, before the speech, independents supported the tax cuts by 68% to 26%, and afterward the margin increased to 78% to 21%. Among Republicans, support for the tax cuts increased only slightly because there was little room for movement -- from a margin of 90% to 5% before the speech to 95% to 3% afterward. There was virtually no change, however, in the priority rating given to the tax cuts by each of the partisan groups.
Survey Methods
Adults 18+ were surveyed...
The sample consists of 49% of respondents who identify themselves as Republicans, 28% who identify themselves as Democrats, and 23% who identify themselves as Independents.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
What was your overall reaction to Bush’s speech tonight – [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
President Bush
2001 Feb 27
V. Pos. 66
Smwht pos 26
Smwht neg 6
V. Neg 1
Mixed/Both *
No Opinion 1
Bill Clinton
1999 Jan 19
V pos 56
S pos 27
s neg 9
v neg 7
m/b 1
no *
1998 Jan 27
52
32
11
5
*
*
10276. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:04:16 PM
The Dems have proposed a tax cut as well, Spaz. The Dem tax cut plan has a greater chance of success.
Debt and Taxes
Mr. Bush likes to declare that a surplus means that the government is collecting too much in taxes. But it means no such thing if the surplus is mainly a matter of preparing for the fiscal consequences of an aging population. And it is. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush's advisers continue to search for reasons that doing the responsible thing is actually a bad idea.
10277. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:05:33 PM
And now thinking just about Bush’s speaking style and delivery, what was your reaction to his speech
tonight -- [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
President Bush
2001 Feb 27
v pos 66
s pos 27
s neg 6
v neg 1
m/b *
no *
Thinking about the policies of President Bush and his administration, in your view, is George W. Bush leading the country in the right direction or in the wrong direction?
Right direction
Wrong direction
No opinion
President Bush
2001 Feb 27 (Post)
84
12
4
2001 Feb 27 (Pre)
73
12
15
Bill Clinton
1995 Jan 24 (Post)
83
15
2
How confident are you in George W. Bush’s abilities to carry out his duties as president -- very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not confident at all?
Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not too confident
Not confident at all
No
opinion
President Bush
2001 Feb 27 (Post)
52
34
12
2
*
Bill Clinton
1999 Jan 19 (Post)
55
24
10
11
0
10278. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:10:14 PM
CBS poll of 987 adults
88% approval of speech
Good lord. Remember how you libs used to cream your jeans about Clinton's speeches being received well by the public?
Remember when we Republicans told you that that's not such a difficult trick? Remember how you then insisted, "No, Bill has as special genius for communicating with the American people"?
How stupid do you feel now?
10279. Wombat - 2/28/2001 2:12:13 PM
President* Bush's tax and spend proposals = "Voodoo Economics"
10280. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:13:09 PM
I knew before I clicked the link it would be Krugman.
The same economist Jade/Caz's quotes everytime.
Everytime.
10281. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:20:00 PM
Ho hum.
Curious George remains a moron.
Spaz is quite excited that Curious George was able to mouth slogans from a teleprompter without picking his nose. He said nothing of substance. This is a major victory for Spaz.
Give him an extra banana and some peanuts.
10282. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:21:52 PM
IJ:
What is this obsession you have?
Are you suggesting that only two people have access to the New York Times' Op-Ed section?
10283. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:24:56 PM
"Curious George was able to mouth slogans from a teleprompter without picking his nose. He said nothing of substance."
The same is true of Bill Clinton. But GWB got higher and more enthusiastic public approval for his speech.
This is the liberals' game. When Bill Clinton speaks in bullet points and broad platitudes and bromides, they call it "substance."
Now, I have no problem with *speaking* in bullet points and bromides. You cannot give the "details" of a 1,000 page budget document in a forty five minute speech. Clinton didn't; Gore didn't; Bush didn't.
Because it's impossible.
But Jadetard and her ilk will claim that Bush said nothing of "substance" in his speech, despite the fact that he spoke in the same level of detail as Bill Clinton or any other President.
10284. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:28:53 PM
Clinton gave the same laundry list SOTU for the last three years. The same broad, glib proposals, the same promises to "save" SS without giving the specifics, and *ALWAYS* without pricetags or costs.
Always.
But that, I guess, was "substantive."
10285. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:31:07 PM
Are you suggesting that only two people have access to the New York Times' Op-Ed section?
Nope. In your case it would take only one person's having access. But actually my comment was about the fact that you incessantly quote Krugman instead of anyone else.
Say...Robert Mundell, for example.
<smirk>
You remember Robert Mundell, don't you?
Anyway, I'm bored with you for today.
10286. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:32:25 PM
Test
10287. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:35:20 PM
IJ:
You're not into Spaz's medications, are you?
Robert Mundell?
10288. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 2:39:29 PM
JadeGold
This is not the first time you refer to Ace's "medications". I suggest you stop that. It's so utterly tasteless and meaningless.
10289. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:41:37 PM
I should note that they're only "moving target medications."
Think Spiro Agnew.
Think "magnetism."
10290. CalGal - 2/28/2001 2:41:41 PM
Indy,
But Krugman's a pretty credible source.
10291. jexster - 2/28/2001 2:42:26 PM
Same economist I quote everytime...everytime...
Pretty damned hard to argue with.
10292. jexster - 2/28/2001 2:44:50 PM
Jade..
Glad UR here.....
I am working on a project for class (stats & SF Political Issues) now in the proposal stage - "Asian American Voting Behavior in SF"
I am pig ignorant.
Probably it will evolve to a look at Chinese...maybe Chinese + Phillipino ("Asian-American" is such a meaningless construct)
If you've any thoughts, please share here or in detail....jmac@sfsu.edu...
Thanks
10293. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:46:45 PM
Pelle:
Reference to Spaz's medications offends you?
I give as I get. Perhaps you should examine your own rather myopic perspective.
10294. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:56:45 PM
Jex:
I can't address the Filipino community.
I can tell you the Chinese community tends toward the liberal on cultural issues at the same time as we maintain our traditional (non-Judeo-Christian) values. On fiscal issues, we're more conservative. We like the idea of tax cuts but the notion of debt appalls us.
I'll think more on your project. Is there something specific you need? Voting breakdowns?
10295. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 3:03:50 PM
Pelle:
I suggest you stop that.
or what?
10296. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 3:05:57 PM
ducky
I was just appealing to his/her common decency, if any.
10297. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 3:07:57 PM
oh - ok
carry on
heh
10298. jexster - 2/28/2001 3:13:24 PM
Thanks Jade...The prof, head of the SF State Pol Science Dept. has promised to share his EXTENSIVE dataset on SF elections - precinct by precinct with census data...(I haven't forgotten how to brown-nose)...one of the 4 assistants he has teaching the course is a grad student and head of the Chinese-American voting project here in SF...I also have a candidate who lost a recent SF Supe Race, carrying Chinatown but losing the white areas to a radical...
So I do have some resources...but damned ignorant...
one thing that strikes me is the large demographic differences within the community and also the generational thing...
The Chinese don't have the best turnout record but that, supposedly is changing along with increased governmental participation....
Do yall block vote?
10299. jexster - 2/28/2001 3:14:09 PM
Welll any thoughts you have, I appreciate....much work to do..much chow fun to eat!
10300. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 3:19:16 PM
Jex:
Have you contacted the OCA in San Francisco?
The Chinese Assistant you mentioned can give you a lead.
10301. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 3:53:46 PM
Jade - Is the "direction" of the magnetic field accurate?
Yes.
10302. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 3:58:10 PM
Jade - Curious George's eyes are terribly close together.
How terribly Democratic of you.
Gore didn't lose, Niner.
Really, only the people who actually watched the debates believe he lost. The fawning sycophants believe he won.
10303. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:02:11 PM
CalGal - But Krugman's a pretty credible source.
Only if you find partisan hacks credible.
Jex - Same economist I quote everytime...everytime...
Which proves my point.
10304. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:04:28 PM
Jex - I am pig ignorant.
You certainly are.
10305. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:05:52 PM
Pelle - I was just appealing to his/her common decency, if any.
You are tilting at windmills.
10306. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 4:15:48 PM
I can tell you the Chinese community tends toward the liberal on cultural issues at the same time as we maintain our traditional (non-Judeo-Christian) values.
Personally, I find this more offensive than JadePyrite's references to Ace's medication. Do epileptics take medication? If so, at least that sort of statement has the intrinsic value of being based in truth.
Offensive is probably too strong a word, but if we're going to appeal to someone's "common decency," I'd start by asking that they not post known falsehoods.
"Our" my aunt fanny brice.
10307. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:25:51 PM
Indy - I'd start by asking that they not post known falsehoods.
This would effectively render Jade (and Jex) mute.
10308. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:29:58 PM
Thanks Jade...I'll put that in my proposed researchy section
10309. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:30:46 PM
Looks like Biener is speechless in Seattle as it were...was wrong bean man...jade made you look the fool - again?
10310. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:32:18 PM
SPeaking of speechless in Seattle, when asked why BOTUS had nothing to say about The Quake, the travelin Road Show responded "we take things in stride"
Translation from BushSpeak
We haven't had time to give the idiot cue cards
10311. Fielding - 2/28/2001 4:39:33 PM
JJ:
"Only if you find partisan hacks credible."
Calling Krugman a partisan hack is not only evidence of one's own hackdom, it is evidence of one's own stupidity.
10312. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:42:32 PM
Jex - I am sure #10309 means something to you, but I don't have the inclination to try to decode it.
10313. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:44:00 PM
Chicago's Roman Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Francis George, said that executing Timothy McVeigh would be tantamount to committing assisted
suicide. George spoke to a group that included relatives of murder victims who have become opponents of the Death Penalty. Hey
10314. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:44:37 PM
So Weenie, what do you know about Chinese-American voting behavior?
10315. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:47:02 PM
Fielding - Calling Krugman a partisan hack is not only evidence of one's own hackdom, it is evidence of one's own stupidity.
It is merely a statement of an obvious fact. It is really a shame since the man is reasonably intelligent and can present a reasonable sounding argument. It is too bad that he uses that ability to promote purely political positions.
10316. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 4:49:35 PM
"Purely Political" in that he disagrees with you? I can't think of any other meaning of the term that makes sense when applied to Krugman.
10317. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:52:25 PM
jex - what do you know about Chinese-American voting behavior?
It will be difficult to classify. I think you will find significant differences between the way recently naturalized immigrants vote compared to second or third generation. I think you will also find differences between Taiwan-born, Hong Kong-born and mainland-born immigrants.
10318. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:55:03 PM
Rask - "Purely Political" in that he disagrees with you?
He doesn't always disagree with me. He is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics.
10319. wonkers2 - 2/28/2001 5:01:40 PM
Krugman applies economics to real world problems in a quite straightforward apolitical way.
10320. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:03:13 PM
Peddling Prosperity : Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations
by Paul Krugman
Newsweek
In ten lively chapters, Krugman traces how loose economic thinking has repeatedly led to wrongheaded government policies. In the process, he offers the best primer around on recent US economic history.
10321. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:03:47 PM
Biener is a partisan wack hack
10322. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:04:17 PM
and pig ignorant..not just about Chinese voting either
10323. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:04:41 PM
Wonk - Krugman applies economics to real world problems in a quite straightforward apolitical way.
Only if you mean apolitical to mean in ways you agree with. Even when I agree with Krugman I can tell he is just trying to justify his politics.
10324. Fielding - 2/28/2001 5:05:35 PM
JJ:
"He doesn't always disagree with me. He is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics."
No, that's what you do.
Give one example of Krugman bending an economic argument to fit a political position. Just one.
10325. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:06:12 PM
Jex - and pig ignorant
That would give me something in common with you and that simply isn't possible.
10326. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:06:14 PM
haven't had the time to read Mister Krugman today..but let me guess....
He ripped BOTUS to shreds and Beiner can't figger out where to begin pickin up the pieces...am I wrong?
10327. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:07:39 PM
JJB - But thanks for Message # 10317 I put into Questions to Explore Section right now!
10328. Ronski - 2/28/2001 5:10:11 PM
The Latest from Laura: More Political Than Ever
10329. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:11:17 PM
Fielding - Try the Krugman book Jex mentioned upthread. It is loaded with examples.
10330. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:11:53 PM
This is killer...Bernie Shaw in his last interview with Nanny Warbucks...
I noticed that the Moron kept lookin at you during his news conference and you kept sending him prompts about what to say..what's that about?
hehehe
10331. Ronski - 2/28/2001 5:15:29 PM
10332. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:17:09 PM
Jex - am I wrong?
Always.
10333. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:19:11 PM
Fielding - If you want an example of Krugman using "economics" to justify a political position you need look no farther than today's column.
10334. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:29:16 PM
Krugman is a hack. Not for what he says, but for what he doesn't say.
When Bush proposes tax cuts, he cries "Debt reduction! Fiscal irresponsibility!"
Fair enough.
But when Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year), Krugman did NOT cry "Debt reduction! Fiscal irresponsibility!"
He likes Debt Reduction, yes. But he seems to like new government spending just as much, for he does not claim that Debt Reduction should take primacy over new spending. When new spending is proposed, he is silent on the matter of debt reduction, apparently oblivious to the fact that money spent on new programs could ALSO be used to pay down the debt.
This is dishonest argumentation. Krugman does not favor debt reduction over all else; he merely favors debt reduction over ONE KIND of "spending" -- namely, tax cuts. He does NOT favor debt reduction over another kind of spending -- *actual* spending --which could also be used to retire debt.
Nevertheless, whenever a tax cut is proposed, he cries and whines like the Boy who Cried Wolf.
He should admit forthrightly that he prefers:
1) (tie) Debt Reduction
New Government Spending
2) Tax cuts
and that George Bush prefers
1) Tax reduction
2) Debt reduction
3) Government spending
and that simple "objective economics" cannot prove that Krugman's preference -- spending -- is any better than Bush's preference -- tax cuts.
10335. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:30:01 PM
Both have the same effect on debt reduction: namely, there's less money for it.
Whether the country spends an additional $1.6 trillion or passes a tax cut of $1.6 trillion, that's $1.6 trillion that's unavailable for debt retirement, and an "economist" shouldn't care which we do, at least when he's wearing his economist hat.
Krugman IS an economist, but his columns are political -- to be more specific, liberal and partisan -- and they are quoted for that purpose.
10336. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:34:20 PM
A country could be "hard-hearted," and have almost no social spending, and low taxes; its budget would be balanced and thus fiscally "responsible."
A country could be "compassionate," and have lots of social spending, and high taxes; its budget too would be balanced and thus fiscally "responsible."
Either would result in balanced budgets... and an economist, speaking AS an economist, really ought not to have a preference for either.
But Krugman clearly does. And his preference is not based on economics. It is based on politics.
He wants to spend more on the poor. He wants a big-budget prescription plan for seniors, rather than Bush's moderate, more stingy plan.
Fair enough.
But since Krugman clearly endorses spending for one purpose (social programs), he cannot with a straight face claim that he's "neutral and objective" in denigrating plans for another form of "spending" (tax cuts).
10337. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 5:57:27 PM
"But when Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year) . . ."
Yeah, that Democrat-controlled House of Representatives!
10338. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:57:55 PM
ou're a middle-aged couple, at the peak of your earning power. You are saving in preparation for your retirement, a little more than 10 years from now. You consider paying off your mortgage early. But the bank informs you that you would face prepayment penalties. Do you (a) stick with your plan to prepare for retirement, but buy stocks and bonds instead of paying off your mortgage, or (b) say, "Oh, in that case let's forget about the future and take an expensive vacation"?
George W. Bush would apparently answer (b). For that is the essence of his latest argument for his tax cut.
HUH?
10339. jexster - 2/28/2001 6:00:03 PM
Double HUH, Double DUH
Let's not forget that Texas is now in serious fiscal difficulty thanks to the tax cut Mr. Bush pushed through as governor — a cut that he helped sell with tricky accounting, including a supposed two-year Medicaid package that was actually only budgeted for 23 months....
10340. jexster - 2/28/2001 6:00:42 PM
Well they aren't forgettin in Tejas...nearly 1 billion and counting
10341. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:22:55 PM
Lesson #23,643 in why to never trust Ace's characterization of anyone else's arguments.
Krugman's frequent attacks have been on *irresponsible* tax cuts. That is, tax cuts of such magnitude that they send us back into deficits. He is also opposed to intellectually dishonest attempts to *sell* such tax cuts.
Ace thinks it is damning that Krugman didn't attack the 5% (not 8%) of growth in federal spending last year. I would suspect this is because inflation grew by over 3%, population grew by over 1%, and the economy grew by around 4%, leading the Federal government to shrink as a % of GDP from 18.6% in 1999 to 18.2% in 2000. No one but Ace would consider this irresponsible growth.
There is some truth to the accusation that Krugman picks his targets based on his political leanings, but Ace seems to assume that his political leanings are completely independent of his economic analysis. Ace also ignores Krugman's many attacks on the left (a huge share of Peddling Prosperity, the book JJ cites as evidence of hackery, was devoted to attacking the policies of many of Clinton's top policy advisors, such as Robert Reich, and Krugman has been a very harsh critic of the anti-WTO crowd). That is a far cry from hackdom.
10342. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:25:42 PM
And Krugman *is* usually upfront when he is making normative political/economic statements.
10343. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:28:40 PM
Real government spending rises by less than one percent per capita, while shrinking by 4 tenths of a percent of GDP, and Ace shrieks about the gummint running amok on a spending spree.
Go figure.
10344. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:35:19 PM
If Krugman isn't a hack, someone should inform him that Texas is still running a surplus and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
10345. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:38:29 PM
Rask - Ace also ignores Krugman's many attacks on the left
I don't whether Krugman is attacking the left or the right. In both cases he tries to use economics to justify his politics. At times he may be a bipartisan hack, but he is still a hack.
10346. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:38:58 PM
Krugman never said they weren't running surpluses. He said "serious fiscal difficulty". I have no idea what he is talking about, but it is quite easy to have serious fiscal difficulties while running a surplus.
10347. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:41:21 PM
"I don't whether Krugman is attacking the left or the right. In both cases he tries to use economics to justify his politics. At times he may be a bipartisan hack, but he is still a hack."
Please provide tell me how you distinguish between someone who uses his economics to justify his politics, and someone whose politics are largely dictated by their economics. And then please give me a *specific* example of Krugman's that meets that criterion.
10348. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 6:46:00 PM
It's hilarious to see Biener calling Krugman a hack.
Krugman's popular books and popular newspaper articles are not scholarly works. He can be as political in those as he pleases, but as Rask says, he bases his arguments even in the popular articles on economic reasoning, which is more than can be said for Biener.
Biener! Hahahaha.
10349. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 6:51:42 PM
"[Krugman] is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics."
Well, he may do that in the sort of books and articles you are able to read, but not in the scholarly ones. At any rate, I would love for Biener to walk us through an example from Peddling Prosperity.
Ace's posts from 10334 to 10336 are as silly as possible, for the reasons Rask outlines.
10350. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:54:38 PM
Rask - I have no idea what he is talking about, but it is quite easy to have serious fiscal difficulties while running a surplus.
You would have to explain this one to me. As long as they can pay their bills with money left over, I don't see much difficulty. If they were running real deficits instead of phantom deficits dreamed up by Democrats, that would qualify as serious difficulty.
Please provide tell me how you distinguish between someone who uses his economics to justify his politics, and someone whose politics are largely dictated by their economics.
Krugman take economic data out of context to support a political point not supported by the data in context. He misstates and misrepresents economic data (see above). He makes economic predictions without any factual basis. He exaggerates and distorts data to "prove" what the actual numbers dispute. Today's column demonstrates this.
10351. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 7:05:56 PM
Krugman take economic data out of context to support a political point not supported by the data in context.
An example?
He misstates and misrepresents economic data (see above).
An example?
10352. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:34:25 PM
[Duh+Huh]*3
Some people — including, alas, Alan Greenspan — have made it seem as if any purchase of private-sector assets by the trust funds would instantly politicize the financial markets and undermine the foundations of the free-enterprise system. But that's ideology, not analysis; people who have looked seriously at the issue think that these concerns are vastly overblown.
..........
"The Greenspan Concern over Public Ownership of Private Assets: Can the
Social Security Trust Fund Safely Own Such Assets"
Peter Orszag and Robert Greenstein
In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on January 25, Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan argued that allowing the government
to hold private assets would risk "sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise."(1) Chairman Greenspan expressed concern that public ownership of private assets would introduce
dangerous political interference in our capital markets.
10353. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:38:11 PM
THE GREENSPAN CONCERN OVER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE ASSETS:CAN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND SAFELY OWN SUCH ASSETS?
The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities
10354. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:40:43 PM
What Bush is doin is plain. Ya don't need Krugman to splain it for ya....
Party now, pay later
Its the oldest DC trick.....a commission to study the SS & Medicare, "the crazy aunt in the basement"....
And he's doing it to make his budget numbers add up with that bull shit tax cut.
10355. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:43:03 PM
Hell its not even the first time BOTUS has pulled that scam....
Anyone know how Warbucks energy "task force" is doin?
Quick tell me before the next rollin blackout and/or the next 100 million his buddies in Texas make rippin off Californians!
Sheesh.
10356. jexster - 2/28/2001 8:08:40 PM
Hundreds - possibly thousands - of Florida votes for Al Gore and George W. Bush were never counted because marks in the "write-in" section of the ballot caused these ballots to be incorrectly treated as "overvotes."
These were not questionable ballots rejected at the legal discretion of county canvassing boards because they could not identify the "intent of the voter." These ballots had nothing to do with dimpled chads.
Rather, these were legally valid votes that were rejected because a machine spotted both a vote for a listed candidate and a mark in the "write-in" section. The machines wrongly interpreted such votes as invalid overvotes - and elections officials illegally failed to correct the machines' mistakes.
Such votes were illegally excluded from the certified totals of at least eight counties in Florida, notably Lake and Duval counties. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified more than 28,000 overvotes from counties that violated Florida law by ignoring such votes.
10357. jexster - 2/28/2001 8:08:59 PM
The Lake County effect.....
10358. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:47:11 PM
For the record:
Washington Post, 02/28/01
"In case Jesse Jackson isn't in enough trouble, now he stands accused of being a deadbeat tipper.
"Hudson Institute senior fellow Evan Gahr has done a study of the out-of-wedlock father's tipping habits, and concludes that the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition founder is--with his own money, at least--a cheapskate.
"Jackson has "a reputation for not tipping" servers at the Georgetown jazz club Blues Alley, Gahr reports. A former Blues Alley hostess told Gahr of an allegedly representative 1989 incident in which Jackson reportedly stiffed his waitress of the appropriate $40 gratuity.
"That because Jackson "believes waitresses should not be dependent on tops and should earn a decent, livable wage," Gahr quotes the hostess who knows Jackson."
10359. Cellar Door - 2/28/2001 8:54:27 PM
Boy Scouts Admit to Drop in Membership.
10360. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:58:05 PM
Not in Maryland. Big jump in the last year.
10361. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:10:53 PM
Jex - Try reading Florida's election laws sometime.
10362. Autodaffy - 2/28/2001 10:17:11 PM
The NY Times had an article about five days ago about how the dem interest groups were about to go public with the real reason for earlier claims of "riskiness" of tax cuts, i.e., that a tax cut hinders the increased spending they favor.
I wonder if the putting of the vote on the fast track isn't a way of nullifying the efforts of these groups, a matter of timing. Of course, no one can admit this, but it makes good sense not to stand around while the pigs squeal louder and louder around the slop trough.
10363. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:22:56 PM
Daffy - That really isn't much of a revelation. It is well known that Democrats use payoffs to various interest groups in order to get votes. Of course Republicans do something similar. Democrats use spending programs to buy votes with other people's money. Republicans use tax cuts to buy votes by allowing people to keep their own money. Personally I prefer the latter.
10364. Autodaffy - 2/28/2001 10:31:43 PM
Beiner,
That's true, but the effort has been to keep spending out of the discussion up until now. Hence, whe here from Daschle, no-brows, and every other dem hack that Regan created the deficits when he "disastrously" cut taxes. I am old enough to remember George Michaels and Tip O'Neil standing on the capitol steps to declare, with big grins, that Regan's spending cutting budgets were "dead on arrival" in congress. They kept spending up, he cut taxes, and now they want to pin the donkey tail on him.
It represents, I think, a measure of their desperation that they are considering telling the truth, instead of feeding us more blather about "paying for tax cuts." Orwell would have had fun with that phrase, since you only have to pay for spending.
10365. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:03:55 PM
On Krugman... Here's a coupla quotes from one of his columns (last year, on the subject of the estate tax), and my (slightly-edited) responses to the person who had emailed it to me. (I can't link to the whole column; anyone who wishes to see it in its entirety can download it from the NYT site for $2.50 --search for "reckonings; death and taxes".)
"[T]he distribution of wealth does not look like the 'bell curve' beloved of statisticians. Instead it is best described by a 'power law,' a sort of elongated ski slope. Power-law distributions, unlike bell curves, have a lot of their mass far out in the right tail -- which means, in this particular case, that a large share of the total wealth is held by a small number of families."
This is exactly backwards. If you graph the proportions of individuals having incomes in various ranges -- the way, say, the standard IQ/height/whatever bell curve represents the proportions of individuals having IQs/heights/whatever in various ranges --then having a few individuals with a lot of wealth and a lot of individuals with little wealth gives you a lot of mass on the left side of the graph, not the right.
"Or maybe Congress is really, truly worried about incentives --about the potential entrepreneur who thinks to himself: 'Why bother? Even if I make millions, I can only pass 61 percent of it to my kids. So I'll stick with my job as an insurance salesman.'"
If Krugman really thinks that the exact same percentage of insurance salesmen will quit their jobs to become entrepreneurs, whether they can pass on 61% or 100% of their estate -- then he would flunk Econ 101. If he doesn't, then the above passage is demagoguery, plain and simple.
10366. joezan - 2/28/2001 11:12:04 PM
Here is a pretty nifty Quicken tax calculator to figure your taxes, individually, under the Bush tax proposal. Just for the heck of it, try a few different brackets/situations. It's quick (immediate).
10367. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:14:29 PM
Rask, #10341:
Still flogging the percentage-of-GDP horse, I see.
Quick quiz:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify doubling government spending.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer.
10368. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:18:48 PM
Stumbo - If you think that is bad, you should ask PE about disincentives of higher marginal tax rates. He doesn't believe raising marginal tax rates on upper incomes acts as a disincetive.
10369. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:20:10 PM
... And, as usual, I apologize for using certain words twice in the same post.
10370. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:29:14 PM
JJ:
I trust that PE can tell the left side of a graph from the right, though. So that alone should put him one up on Krugman.
10371. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 12:08:58 AM
Stumbo: "If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify doubling government spending.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer."
No. The needs of government do not automatically move in lockstep with GDP. But it does depend on how GDP was doubled. If we doubled our working population, we would probably need to roughly double the size of government. If we doubled our productivity, we could easily meet existing levels of service, but we would almost certainly be much more willing to make lot of government expenditures that are currently deemed unworthy, such as serious efforts to reduce fossil fuels, universal access to health care, etc.
Now that I played your game, reverse the question:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify keeping government spending at the same level as it is this year.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer.
10372. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 12:27:11 AM
I should further point out that while real per capita spending did go up slightly, it has been generally negative over the past 8 years, and it shouldn't be too surprising if the government wants to play a little catch-up during a year with a surplus. As I have mentioned before, entitlements are separate from the budget process, and increse with inflation and membership eligibility, so if you want to see what is driving budget changes, look at discretionary spending, where there was a real increase of about 4% - split evenly between domestic spending and defense spending.
10373. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:35:10 AM
Message # 10365
"Or maybe Congress is really, truly worried about incentives -- about the potential entrepreneur who thinks to himself: 'Why bother? Even if I make millions, I can only pass 61 percent of it to my kids. So I'll stick with my job as an insurance salesman.'"
If Krugman really thinks that the exact same percentage of insurance salesmen will quit their jobs to become entrepreneurs, whether they can pass on 61% or 100% of their estate --then he would flunk Econ 101. If he doesn't, then the above passage is demagoguery, plain and simple.
Rubbish. Krugman's point is rather that the difference in the number of insurance salesmen who would become entrepreneurs if the estate tax rises falls from 39% to 0% is neglible. Of course the question can only be decided empirically, but his remark is plausible.
Message # 10367
Still flogging the percentage-of-GDP horse, I see. Quick quiz:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked --justify doubling government spending. [ ] Yes [ ] No Justify your answer.
Raskolnikov's point was not about "justifying" government spending.
Ace is correct that Krugman is not as solicitous about the 5% (real) increase in federal spending last year as with Bush's tax cuts. But the comparison is a bit silly, isn't it. The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to. Bush's tax cut would move the budget substantially toward deficit, while the 5% increase in spending did not (because the revenue that paid for it was natural increase due to high economic growth).
10374. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:36:52 AM
Message # 10368:
Stumbo - If you think that is bad, you should ask PE about disincentives of higher marginal tax rates. He doesn't believe raising marginal tax rates on upper incomes acts as a disincetive.
Biener, you are a filthy and hallucinating liar, or just stupid. I've never said any such thing. Any number of times I've said the positive incentive effects of tax cuts are non-linear and diminishing, i.e., a 1% tax cut has a much larger effect when the highest marginal rate is 90% than the same 1% tax cut when the highest marginal rate is 40%.
10375. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:38:40 AM
What guidepost shall I use for determining if my drycleaner is overcharging me?
1) The rate of inflation
2) The rate of growth of my personal income
According to Rask, we should use #2. If I get a raise, the drycleaner is justified in raising his prices proportiate to my raise, and then, on top of that, adding +4-5%.
Why?
Who the fuck knows.
10376. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:41:37 AM
errata for Message # 10374: a 1% tax cut has a disproportionately smaller effect when the highest marginal rate is 40% than a 1% tax cut when the highest marginal rate is 90%.
10377. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:45:07 AM
The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to.
It is not 5%; it is 8%. It is an 8% increase in spending. It only becomes 5% if you take the budget as a proportion of GDP.
I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth (4-5% below the rate of inflation) in years of zero/negligible growth.
If the GDP should not be taken into account in such years (as I think it should not; the rate of inflation is the only real guage of growth "in real terms"), then why does Rask (along with PE) insist that growth in GDP mandates an automatic growth in spending, such that growth in spending equal to the GDP growth shall not be counted as "real growth"?
10378. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:50:33 AM
10379. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:53:35 AM
Message # 10377
I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth....
I suppose that depends on the size of the contraction. If it was 1929, I would not support it. If we are talking about a trifling contraction, it wouldn't really matter.
why does Rask (along with PE) insist that growth in GDP mandates an automatic growth in spending....
I don't, and I think Rask just said he doesn't, either.
10380. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:56:53 AM
The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to. Bush's tax cut would move the budget substantially toward deficit, while the 5% increase in spending did not (because the revenue that paid for it was natural increase due to high economic growth).
Incorrect.
$650 billion budget * 1.08 growth * ten years =
$1.403 trillion
$650 billion budget * 1.04 growth * ten years
962 billion
That's a difference of around a half trillion dollars... in the LAST YEAR alone. If you add up the differnces year by year, you will exceed a trillion dollars, easily. Let's guess $1.2 trillion.
Now, is PE claiming that $1.2 trillion in increased spending is "trifling" but a $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut threatens deficits?
Har-di-har-har.
10381. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:58:55 AM
"I don't, and I think Rask just said he doesn't, either."
That's how Rask usually deflates numbers he doesn't like (like an 8% rate of growth) into numbers he's more comfortable defending (like his asserted 5% increase in growth).
10382. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:01:06 AM
Where do these 10 years suddenly come from? Ace's statement:
....Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year).....
10383. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:04:31 AM
Ha! Ducky owes me 5 bucks.
"According to Rask, we should use #2. If I get a raise, the drycleaner is justified in raising his prices proportiate to my raise, and then, on top of that, adding +4-5%. "
What the fuck does this have to do with government spending?
"It is not 5%; it is 8%. It is an 8% increase in spending. It only becomes 5% if you take the budget as a proportion of GDP. "
Don't you even bother to look things up before claiming they are facts? The number is 5%, when *not* corrected for inflation.
Total Federal outlays in 1999: 1.703 trillion
Total Federal outlays in 2000: 1.789 trillion, a change of 5.05%. Inflation was around 3 and a half percent last year, so real Federal growth was about a percent and half, and most of that is explained by population growth.
When you take the budget as a proportion of GDP, government growth becomes negative.
"I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth (4-5% below the rate of inflation) in years of zero/negligible growth. "
You are completely confusing the issues here. The question I was addressing is whether or not government spending is really growing when it barely keeps pace with inflation and population growth while the economy really grows. Your question asks a completely different question about whether government spending *should* be growing or shrinking, which depends, IMO, on what you want to spend the money on, or what you want to cut.
10384. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:06:26 AM
PE:
Ten years comes from the cost of growing the government at that rate over ten years vs. reducing taxes $1.6 trillion over ten years.
You claimed it was "trivial" to merely bloat the budget by x%. It is not trivial. This year's massive increase becomes next year's baseline. Keep that up and in ten years you've spent more than $1.2 trillion more than you would have spent if you'd kept spending at or around the rate of inflation.
10385. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:09:19 AM
Rask,
I wasn't talking to you; I was discussing your moronic point, and speaking of you in the third person.
The 8% figure has been cited again and again and no one has challenged it, except for you.
10386. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:10:57 AM
Ace is nonsensically extrapolating last year's numbers into a ten year trend. He ignores that Federal spending for the previous 8 years kept pace with inflation at a time when population was increasing.
10387. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:12:03 AM
Your numbers are based on "Total Federal Outlays," which includes SS payments, which is convenient for you, of course.
Let us try it again: The non-SS budget increased 8%. How about that?
10388. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:12:17 AM
well, there you just addressed me in the second person, which qualifies regardless. Ducky owes me 5 bucks. I knew you couldn't keep your mouth shut.
10389. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:13:14 AM
He ignores that Federal spending for the previous 8 years kept pace with inflation at a time when population was increasing.
Inflation has been 6% for the past three years?
Who knew?
10390. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:15:01 AM
Whatever, my insufferable little pansified prig.
10391. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:15:16 AM
"Your numbers are based on "Total Federal Outlays," which includes SS payments, which is convenient for you, of course."
Your initial claim was that government spending went up 8%, so of course I included SS payments, just as I included the money to pay the janitor in the White House. Both are government spending.
"Let us try it again: The non-SS budget increased 8%. How about that?"
That isn't true either. Why don't you actually do your own homework for a change and look the numbers up before posting them.
Ace's idea of research: post a wild-ass guess and wait for someone who actually knows how to look up data to post the real number.
10392. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:16:19 AM
"Inflation has been 6% for the past three years? "
Of course it hasn't. Your 6% figure is another one of your delusional claims.
10393. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:18:22 AM
My little Cunty-Wunty,
My numbers come from Bush, and they have not yet been challenged or refuted by anyone who can be relied upon to authoritatively refute them.
And no, I don't count my tight-ass little "policy analysis scientist" as "authoritative."
If you know the "facts," I suggest you send a fax to the DNC pronto... because the DNC is letting Bush's 6%-over-three-years, 8%-last-year-alone "lie" go trumpeted through the land without rebuttal.
10394. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:19:32 AM
"The 8% figure has been cited again and again and no one has challenged it, except for you."
My guess is that they were talking about discretionary spending, which increased by 7.3 percent last year. Adjusted for inflation, that is about 4%.
10395. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:21:07 AM
What the fuck does this have to do with government spending?
My Precious Pillowbiter, your claim is that if GDP rises ergo the budget should rise proportionately, irregardless of the rate of inflation, just as my hypothetical drycleaner raises his prices proportionately to my income.
I thought that was rather obvious.
10396. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:22:17 AM
Ace: Try a primary source. For the umpteenth time,
The CBO's historical budget data. Go to table F8.
I am not surprised that Bush gets his numbers wrong.
10397. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:25:48 AM
"My Precious Pillowbiter, your claim is that if GDP rises ergo the budget should rise proportionately, irregardless of the rate of inflation, just as my hypothetical drycleaner raises his prices proportionately to my income. "
Well that explains that. You (typically) are addressing a non-existent argument. Not that your analogy works anyway, as rationales for public spending are almost by definition different from those in private transactions.
10398. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:27:33 AM
"My guess is that they were talking about discretionary spending, which increased by 7.3 percent last year. Adjusted for inflation, that is about 4%."
Ah, my Sweet Little Pederast, so you knew the number being cited? Fine.
Calculate the discretionary budget (let's say, as I guessed before, around $650 billion) at a 4% rate of growth (ABOVE inflation!) as compared to the same budget with a 0% rate of growth (AT THE LEVEL of inflation).
962 billion vs. 650 billion IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE.
The last year represents more than $300 billion in new spending; the last four years together would represent around $1.0 trillion in spending; adding in the first six years, we're at an additional $1.6 (approximately) trillion in new spending.
What a stupid little bitch.
You keep playing games to deflate numbers; you deflate for inflation, you deflate by expressing a budget as a percentage of GDP.
Well, My Dumb Bitch, if Bush's projected budget grows at %4 per year, then that's around ZERO percent growth per year (adjusted for inflation, of course).
Your favorite little bullshit tactic is to deflate your own numbers while "forgetting" to extend the same consideration to, say, MY numbers.
10399. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:28:20 AM
Anyway, it is too late, and I have 3 weeks of sleep to catch up on.
Ducky, e-mail me at Raskolnikov123@yahoo.com
10400. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:30:33 AM
Ergo, Clinton's growth in discretionary spending, if continued for ten years (and why shouldn't it? It's gone on for three years already, and the Democrats, and Rask, will fight to keep it growing into the foreseeable future) amounts to ca. $1.6 trillion.
Bush's tax cuts are equal to $1.6 trillion over ten years.
Rask's, and Krugman's, conclusion? Bush's tax cuts are "irresponsible."
Silence about the $1.6 trillion in new spending.
10401. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:32:33 AM
Wookiefucker: you are still making the mistake of nonsensically extrapolating a one year discretionary budget increase out 10 years in the future, ignoring that the previous 7 years involved no growth or cuts.
10402. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:32:45 AM
Well, Ace, I called 'trivial' the amounts involved in your sentence: "..Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year)....", in comparison with Bush's tax cut. Didn't you know were talking about the last ten years.
All the same, I don't see anything wrong with Raskolnikov's adjustment of these federal spending growth figures for inflation. But it would only be fair to point out that Bush's tax cuts worth $1,6 trillion (or whatever) are also nominal (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) figures, and there's a lot of inflation in 10 years.
10403. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:38:05 AM
Message # 10400
What on earth are you talking about?
Discretionary spending has risen by less than $80 billion since 1992!!!
Like I said, trifling.
10404. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:39:24 AM
$80 billion in nominal terms!
10405. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:47:12 AM
Liar,
Discretionary spending rose 6% average over the last three years.
I extrapolate over ten years for rather obvious reasons: You supported those spending increases THEN, and you support them into the FUTURE.
2000 was not a "one time spending hike." 1998, 1999, and 2000 averaged 6% growth in discretionary spending per year.
There was no extraodinary circumstance or big new program to explain the increases. These are "routine" increases, explainable by nothing in particular. As such, you cannot claim that they are aberrant.
They are not aberrant. As soon as we had surpluses, discretionary spending shot up. Please explain why you believe that trend