Bush by a nose.
2. theDiva - 10/18/2000 4:27:47 PM
A principled vote is never wasted.
Father Steve 2000
3. bubbaette - 10/18/2000 4:30:33 PM
It will be close, but I think Gore will take it.
4. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 4:30:34 PM
Gore by the slightest of margins
5. Ronski - 10/18/2000 4:32:25 PM
As for why, it's because people like Bush's personality better, but more importantly, he is closer to the center of the electorate in his views, with Gore too much identified with the left in the Democrat Party. I am stunned that Gore did not campaign closer to the center, especially given the fact that when he first tried for the brass ring he was the most conservative Democrat to do so in quite some time. Why he thinks America today is much farther to the left than Tennessee was then, I don't know. But it isn't. A little farther, but not much.
6. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 4:36:09 PM
i think that Gore will edge out a win because the debates will fade a bit in memory the next few weeks (“bush dumb, gore lie” will live on, however) and Gore will out campaign Bush has he did before the debates
it'll be close, but Bush will not be able to convince enough people change is necessary
7. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 4:42:08 PM
Is this what the Debates thread morphed into?
8. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 5:00:41 PM
Since you're the host, Judith, can you keep some disreputable Moties away from me? And can you persuade some others (I'll give you a list) to come and see me?.
9. angel-five - 10/18/2000 5:08:09 PM
Gore by a small margin. He has the electoral lead now and apparently he neither lost nor gained statistically significant ground in the debates.
10. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 5:17:40 PM
YC:
I'm not the host but I think you do quite well in fending off the hordes...stay strong!
11. concerned - 10/18/2000 5:19:26 PM
Gee. I wish we'd kept the debate posts for this thread.
12. concerned - 10/18/2000 5:19:46 PM
Bush to win.
13. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 5:25:08 PM
Gore to win but I wish it were Bradley.
14. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:30:14 PM
15. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:31:39 PM
Last night George Stephanopolous predicted that the DNC had an ad already in the can bringing home Gore's point that Bush's SS plan double counted $1 trillion.
Guess what CNN's now reporting.
Wish I could see some ads on TV but Gore's goin to take CA by 15 points
16. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:36:28 PM
Dr. William "Reyn" Archer, Bush's controversial Texas Health Commissioner, is in trouble again for making statements that, to be charitable, were highly racially insensitive.
According to today's Houston Chronicle, "In a tape recording former Associate Commissioner Dr. Demetria Montgomery made of a conversation with Archer earlier this year, he tells her she is too smart and encourages her to think more with her heart and less with her intellect if she wishes to succeed. (Translation - Become a Moron)
"'I want you to be clear about what I'm asking you,' Archer said near the conclusion of a 30-minute rambling, spiritually oriented conversation about her employment future. 'That is, facts lead to lynchings. Relationships lead to hope.'"
Dr. Montgomery, an African-American, is filing a descrimination suit [Houston Chronicle, 10/18/00]
17. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:41:29 PM
The Democratic National Committee unveiled an ad charging that Bush's plan to allow workers to privately invest part of their Social Security taxes is deceptive and dangerous. Joe Andrew, national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said as he released the ad this morning that Bush's plan is sure to disappoint either young people or seniors, but cannot deliver what Bush has promised to both.
"His priority here is pandering rather than actually trying to grab what he has smugly called the third rail of American politics and find a real solution," Andrew said. "He's grabbed that rail – he just didn't realize we hadn't switched on the electricity yet, and that's what we're going to do with this television ad."
The ad says: "What would George W. Bush's plan do to Social Security? He's promising to take a trillion dollars out of Social Security for privatization. Sounds good. The problem is: Bush has promised the same money to pay seniors their current benefits." The ad concludes, in words that echo a question Gore asked during the debate, "He can't keep both promises. Which promise is he going to break. George W. Bush: his promises threaten Social Security."
The ad is to run in 10 swing states – Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Andrew, the DNC chairman, exuded enthusiasm about the vice president's performance in the debate, saying he and other Democrats had celebrated past 1 a.m. Central time. "Good morning," Andrew said as he began his briefing. "And it is a good morning."
18. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:42:59 PM
19. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:52:12 PM
Todd Gitlin, professor of culture,journalism and sociology at New York University
For anyone with an open eye and ear, Al Gore revealed himself to be an intelligent, thorough and confident figure who one could imagine -- without much difficulty -- mastering the Oval Office. And George W. Bush revealed himself to be a shambling, evasive babbler. Now it's evident that there are a substantial number of Americans,
especially in the contested states, who want their president
stupid. If there are enough of those people, then Bush won this
debate by losing it, by demonstrating his hapless incompetence
and almost daffy incapacity. If the majority of the American
public is unstampeded by the argument that this empty-headed
jokester is a "uniter and not a divider," then they will see that Al
Gore is up to the task of governing, and W. should return to
running ball teams, especially with public subsidy.
20. jexster - 10/18/2000 6:00:14 PM
Wanna know who's gonna win?
Forget tracking polls. Don't consult a pundit (unless its Wm. Saletan). Ignore Jexster's long-awaited prediction (Coming 10/22)
Ask Hollywood. Ask a film critic. Watch The West Wing tonight and ask yourself which candidate is more like President Bartlett.
Roger Ebert, film critic
Gore creamed Bush.
Gore was informed, articulate, on topic and persuasive. Bush was vague, rambling, hesitant. Bush's Johnny Carson nice-guy act wore out. Gore finally found the balance between calm and conviction.
Gore won the debate. More to the point, Bush did not demonstrate competence. Gore seemed presidential. Bush did not.
21. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:08:22 PM
I watched Ebert. He is a very intelligent man. I know because he told me so. He makes his living watching Hollywood movies, which makes him an expert on politics. When he mentioned men he admired, he forgot to mention Stalin. Well, nobody's perfect. Except one Motie I won't bother to mention.
To be fair to fat Ebert, he did make one comment worth listening to, and that is if Bush wins he owes his win to Nader. I wonder if he also thinks Clinton owes his victory to Perot? I really doubt he has that much objectivity.
Bush will win by a slim margin.
22. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:10:08 PM
Al D -
I'm sorta expecting Nader to do a Carnahan. If I were him, I'd stay away from Corvairs and privately chartered aircraft.
23. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:13:54 PM
concerned
You and I agree on many issues, but I prefer your posts when they don't veer off into the absurd. When you make such a post, put a "g" after, that way you're covered.
24. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:14:20 PM
I rather think Ebert said that if Gore is beaten, it will be Nader who will beat him, Al.
25. CalGal - 10/18/2000 6:15:19 PM
23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?
26. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:18:57 PM
Things will get better now that you're here, Cal.
27. CalGal - 10/18/2000 6:21:20 PM
YC--I did say up to 23, you note. You just squeaked by. (g)
28. alistairconnor - 10/18/2000 6:22:28 PM
Nader will get 5.01%. That counts as a win.
29. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:22:59 PM
Re. 25 -
Make that 25 posts, include yourself, except Al D and myself and you'd be correct.
30. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:25:29 PM
yc
I rather think Ebert said that if Gore is beaten, it will be Nader who will beat him, Al.
You are right, but how does that change the content of the post. You have made a distinction without a difference. No big deal, though.
31. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:27:52 PM
23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?
Gratuitous insults belong in the Inferno, but the she devil does what she pleases and will never be called to account. Feel free, jones, to move this post.
32. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:31:32 PM
You're right, Al. I read your post too fast and answered it thinking that you said that Bush will beat Gore. Sorry.
33. ycmeehan -10/18/2000 6:33:47 PM
Al, she's just kidding, for krissakes.
Oh! wait a minute, you're kidding, right?
34. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:36:23 PM
yc
Please don't say that outloud; she might hear you. I think you said one time that CalGal had a great sense of humor, but because of my age, her's was different than mine. for whatever reason, they do seem to be different.
35. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:50:24 PM
Recommended election night victory drink if both Alphalfa Bore and Hilliary Clowntoon lose:
Long Island Iced Tea.
36. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:52:05 PM
Al, definitely she does. So subtle at times that some Moties go after her and give her hell.
Anyway, you and I better get out of here and let the big brains such as Ace come here and enliven the discourse.
37. Al D - 10/18/2000 7:07:44 PM
For a really great time, go to MSNBC and hear Imus tell us what he thinks of Gore.
38. alistairconnor - 10/18/2000 7:23:26 PM
Lewis Lapham, editor of ''Harpers'' magazine, interviewed this morning on the US presidential debate/elections campaign, said that Gore and Bush are ''agents and apostles of the American corporate imperium'', and he's voting for Nader.
He also said that 15,000 came to Nader's Madison Square Gardens rally in NYC - and not a word about it in the NY Times - ''the American media think they are the Vatican''.
39. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 7:41:32 PM
40. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 7:46:35 PM
Oh, are you still here?
41. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:02:47 PM
Which Promise Is He Going To Break?
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Bush's Social Security plan would require "deep cuts in promised benefits, a multi-trillion dollar infusion of new revenue, or some combination of these."[Wall Street Journal, 10/10/00]
In last night's debate, Bush refused to respond to Vice President Gore's questions about his campaign promises to both younger workers and senior citizens.
"Bush has consistently dodged questions about his Social Security plan because he knows he can't deliver what he has promised to the American people," Andrew said today. "Bush's plan would jeopardize future Social Security benefits and threaten the security of America's seniors. It's time for Bush to stop the double talk and come clean on how he would pay for his fiscally dangerous Social Security plan."
42. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:04:20 PM
23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?
Fuzzy Math
43. concerned - 10/18/2000 8:05:05 PM
Re. 41 -
Guess all those Nobel economists don't know squat, eh, jexster?
44. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:06:12 PM
Cellar Comes Thru
the conventional wisdom about George W. Bush is that the Texas governor—to put it bluntly—isn’t quite bright enough to utter intentional lies. "In Bush’s case, you know he’s just mis-stating as opposed to it playing into a story line about him being a serial exaggerator," explains ABC’s sagacious Cokie Roberts.
45. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:07:03 PM
I'm waiting with baited breath for the names of those Nobel economists, concerned.
46. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:08:24 PM
Small wonder that pathetic nincompoop kept whining for Jim Lehrer to save him.
Now he'd got Mommie out on the trail trying to convince us that her baby's not an idiot after all.
bwahahahahaha
47. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:12:54 PM
What is certain is that Mr. Bush's actual Social Security proposal would bankrupt the system. That's not a fuzzy number — it's a cold, hard fact.
A Retirement Fable
aka Dried Bush-Shit, aka Concerned's favorite breakfast cereal
48. concerned - 10/18/2000 8:14:46 PM
Re. 45 -
Here ya go:
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate --1976, Hoover Institution
Robert E. Lucas Jr., Nobel Laureate -- 1995, University of Chicago
James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate -- 1986, George Mason University
Myron S. Scholes, Nobel Laureate -- 1997, Stanford University
Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate -- 1992, University of Chicago
Robert A. Mundell, Nobel Laureate -- 1999, Columbia University
Now, stop eating bait!
49. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:18:56 PM
Got me there concerned. You listed a bunch of economists.
50. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:26:26 PM
51. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:33:40 PM
Put New Mexico in the Gore column
N.M. Republican Party Under Fire
By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -The New Mexico Republican Party (news - web
sites) is under fire from a state elections official over a proposal it considered, but rejected, to offer a reward of up to $20,000 for tips about voting violations.
State Bureau of Elections Director Denise Lamb alerted the U.S. Justice Department (news -web sites) to the proposal, saying the plan would be a federal violation if it targeted minority voters.
The proposal was not intended to scare away voters, state GOP chairman John Dendahl said. He said the party rejected it about two weeks ago because of concerns it would be ``mischaracterized by the Democrats asan affront to Hispanics.''
The proposal would have offered rewards for tips leading to convictions for tampering with voting machines or ballot boxes or for ``false voting.'' Under state law, false voting includes voting in the name of another person or voting in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered.
Lamb called the proposed reward a ``bounty'' that could cause some people to refrain from voting because of fears they unintentionally could violate an election provision.
Hispanic voters are viewed as a key factor in the outcome of the presidential race in New Mexico. Hispanics account for about 37 percent of the state's voting-age population and traditionally have been a solidly Democratic-leaning voting group in New Mexico.
Dendahl said the GOP would operate a toll-free telephone line on Election Day for people who have voting questions or suspect elections irregularities, but no reward will be offered.
52. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 11:19:19 PM
Rolling Stone has had to airbrush an Al Gore hard on from its November 9th cover. (See DrudgeReport for picture.)
The Clinton legacy.
53. joezan - 10/18/2000 11:52:33 PM
BLEEEECHHHHHH!
This is Rolling Stone, the Counter-Culture Bible that shaped my radical views until I stopped using drugs?
RS: There was something special about that (convention) speech.
AlGore: It was directly from my heart. I got some help on it, but I wrote it myself.
RS: You were so plain-spoken.
AG: That's the way I am when I write. If you read the eulogy that I gave for my father or the speech that I made at Ebenezer Church on Martin Luther King Day a few years ago or some of the other speeches
that I've really taken the time to write myself, you'll hear the same voice, and the same plain-spoken approach, because that's all I know how to do.
One other factor: The convention was preceded by my decision to ask Joe Lieberman to be my running mate. And there was a magic about that
combination that is hard to describe...
RS: It was most comparable, really, to the excitement generated by Clinton picking you. In terms of doing something imaginative, different and from the heart.
AG: Actually, it hit people in much the same way. . . . And, if we're successful, Joe will have a similarly expansive interpretation of the true significance of my picking him [laughs].
RS: What do you do to relax on the campaign trail?
AG: I do interviews with journalists who can ask in-depth questions. . . .
54. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 9:01:41 AM
IJ, the fact that a number of economists including nobel prize winners have endorsed bush's plan means little as it only proves that economists disagree (gee, isn't that a news flash!). I find it interesting too that the web site does not allow for someone to withdraw their name -- perhaps after they examined the plan more closely. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there are a number of nobel prize winning economist who haven't endorsed Bush's plan....the Nobel prize committee has always tried to be balanced in their assessments, typically giving the award to more conservative economists in some years and more liberal ones in others. As Rask said, economist have political views, just like everyone else.
The economist magazine recently had a bunch of economists rating Bush & gore's plan -- they gave Bush a solid C and Gore a b-. Not a ringing endorsement for either plan, but the edge went to Gore.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to argue with you when what you keep telling me I said is not what I said. You said I painted an alarmist view. I did no such thing. That I said taxes are required to run the economy or some such thing. I didn't (regardless of if it's true or not). I said that in this economic environment, it is doubtful that the Fed would support a huge injection of fiscal stimulus --rather they would raise rates to counteract the stimulation in an attempt to forestall an inflationary cycle. Already today they announced the social security cola will be going up 3.5% in January...the highest increase since 1991. In this environment, the Fed would definitely work to neutralize the fiscal stimulus. As Rask pointed out, they've already said they would.
55. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 9:01:50 AM
In addition to the problems with the plan to privatize social security which even now the Wall St. Journal is reporting, bush's team has neglected to mention that his tax cut won't be so ubiquitous for the middle class as he suggests because under his plan, more taxpayers will fall under the alternative minimum tax and won't be getting those cuts after all.
Interesting that Bush says to go to his web site and plug in your income and see how much of a tax break you'll get under his plan -- the web site stops at $100,000 income. Apparently he doesn't want you to see how much of a tax break he or others in his family will be getting, or the Donalds or the Gates' of the world.
56. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:51:29 AM
The economist magazine recently had a bunch of economists rating Bush & gore's plan -- they gave Bush a solid C and Gore a b-. Not a ringing endorsement for either plan, but the edge went to Gore.
I've read the article. The economists surveyed were academics, as I recall less than 60 of them replied to the survey, and to the degree Gore edged Bush it was based on the grade each academic gave the respective plans on fairness. Bush's plan won handily on promoting economic efficiency.
I find it interesting too that the web site does not allow for someone to withdraw their name -- perhaps after they examined the plan more closely.
Grasping and silly. The Web site doesn't have a way for anyone to add or withdraw their name because it's a non-interactive site. Would you make the same criticism of a printed statement? BTW, the list is growing rather than shrinking. Last month it was about 300, now it's more than 500.
Do economists disagree? Evidently so, because Slackjaw didn't like it when I remarked similarly (that they disagree), whereas you think they do.
Both you and Rask make the argument that this endorsement means little (or nothing). Are you seriously of the opinion that what six Nobel laureate economists and more than 500 other economists say about economics should be totally ignored? Is your field no more valid or understood than astrology?
(cont.)
57. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:54:11 AM
(cont.)
Already today they announced the social security cola will be going up 3.5% in January...the highest increase since 1991. In this environment, the Fed would definitely work to neutralize the fiscal stimulus.
I'm sure you don't mean to imply that SS COLA has any bearing on Fed policy at all. Regardless, what you and Rask are both arguing is that the Fed would counteract any over stimulus of the economy by the tax cut. Again I say, So?
In addition to the problems with the plan to privatize social security
Eventually, we are going to have to bite the bullet on SS. It makes more sense to do it now during economic good times and surplus than later. Under Gore's plan, eventually SS taxes will have to be raised (yet again) to save it. With a better return on SS through investment in the private sector, that should not be necessary.
Apparently he doesn't want you to see how much of a tax break he or others in his family will be getting, or the Donalds or the Gates' of the world.
They get a lot more money than you or I do already. Perhaps we should just use the government to take it from them.
Under Bush's plan, the rich will pay a slightly greater burden of all income taxes than they do now.
58. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:54:54 AM
Thoughtful: I will have to reply to your charge that I've mischaracterized your earlier statement later.
59. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:13:07 AM
Ha, ha, ha... so now Thoughtful is criticizing Bush's plan on the basis that the Alternate Minimum Tax will preclude some $100,000+pa taxpayers from getting the full benefit of his cut...
Ha, ha, ha. Monday he criticizes Bush's plan for giving too much to the rich, and for being "inflationary." The next day he criticizes Bush's plan for not giving enough to the rich, and for possibly not "giving away" quite enough money to be inflationary...
It seems Thoughtful is pretty inconsistent, except on one point: He will criticize Bush's plan from the right, and he will criticize it from the left. he will criticize it for giving too much to the rich, he will criticize it for not giving enough to the rich. He will criticize it for being too big and thus "inflationary," and then he will criticize it for being not big enough and thus not quite inflationary enough.
His premises and arguments and assumptions and perspective are absolutely inconsistent and self-contradictory, but his conclusion never wavers: Bush's plan is bad.
If not for Reason A, then for contradictory Reason B.
60. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:14:36 AM
This is plainly a case of:
Conclusions first, analysis second.
Any semi-plausible analysis at hand will be used to support the pre-ordained conclusion. Even wildly contradictory analyses.
61. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:17:14 AM
I wonder if Thoughtful has discounted his/Gore's estimate of the "cost" of Bush's tax cuts for the effects of the Alternate Minimum Tax.
It seems that if a lot of rich people won't be getting the full benefit of the rate reduction, then you must of course lower the expected cost of the tax reduction.
But no, he/she/whatever doesn't do that.
Because he/she/whatever finds it rhetorically convenient to peg the cost of the tax reduction at an artificially, dishonestly inflated level, but then to simultaneously criticize the plan as "not giving away as much as it promises."
62. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 10:22:04 AM
I believe Thoughtful is a woman, Ace.
63. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:23:21 AM
Judith,
Based on her rather cavalier attitude towards self-serving self-contradiction, and an utter lack of consistency, I should have guessed.
64. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:23:49 AM
Wimmens, you know, just don't put much value on logical consistency.
65. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:25:56 AM
Example:
1) Hillary Clinton is just as tough and capable as a man.
2) Rick Lazio "threatened" her by walking over to her with his soft-money pledge.
3) But Al Gore didn't similarly threaten Bush by walking even closer to Bush, for no good reason.
Your typical woman --especially your typical liberal woman -- sees no inherent contradiction in these three premises.
66. ycmeehan - 10/19/2000 10:27:35 AM
As I told you before, Ace, you're a phallocrate besides being a kakistocrate.
67. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 10:29:12 AM
Coming directly from Language, yc?
68. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:29:31 AM
This just goes to show you how silly we were to give them the right to vote.
69. ycmeehan - 10/19/2000 10:31:20 AM
Yes, Pelle, from Prof.
70. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:31:50 AM
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED OCT 18, 2000 21:29:51 ET XXXXX
ERECTION ELECTION: ROLLING STONE AIRBRUSHES GORE'S CROTCH ON COVER
Publishers row was stunned late Wednesday after it was revealed how ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE had air-brushed Vice President Al Gore’s crotch region in a jaw dropping cover spread in it’s Nov. 9th issue.
ROLLING STONE editor in chief Jann Wenner had no comment on a report from the online service INSIDE.COM which first detailed the Gore photo shoot.
Gore’s protruding portrait actually had to be brought down a bit , according magazine insiders.
The khaki-clad Gore appeared erect in the original photos which were later modified.
The photos accompany an extended interview with Gore by Wenner. Wenner has become a top supporter of the vice president, traveling on the campaign trail and hosting a star-studded fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.
They talked about Gore's Bonergate all morning on Imus.
I can't wait for Letterman, Leno, Conan, Killborn, & Maher to weigh in on Chubby-Gate.
71. robertjayb - 10/19/2000 10:32:15 AM
.
The voter.com poll ia unchanged today with Bush at 42% and Gore at 40%. In the Zogby poll Bush jumps 1 to 44% and Gore holds steady at 43%.
72. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:34:06 AM
NBC Teeter/Hart Poll: Bush 45 Gore 42
Portrait of America: Bush 45 Gore 40
ABC News/Wall Street Journal: Bush 48 Gore 42
73. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:34:46 AM
Thank you, judithah.
No, Ace, I'm not being contradictory, I'm criticizing the "fuzzy numbers" and exaggerations the Bushies have put forth including not being upfront about who will and won't benefit by the massive tax cut he's proposing.
74. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:34:56 AM
(above from memory; should be accurate -- especially the first two -- but recollection is hazy on ABC/WSJ)
75. glendajean - 10/19/2000 10:36:14 AM
Gallap has same numbers as ABC poll, so I assume it's the same. Nader has 4% in their poll.
76. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:37:39 AM
Thoughtful:
Give it up. No "Bushies" are promising big tax cuts to the rich. If anything, "Bushies" are downplaying the extent to which the rich will benefit, while "Gories" have based their entire campaign on "the wealthiest 1%."
It turns out that the rich *won't* benefit nearly as much as the "Gories" pretend -- and then they simultaneously turn around and criticize *BUSH* for not giving as much to the rich as Gore *CLAIMS* he will.
77. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:40:38 AM
Further:
"I'm not being contradictory"
Of course you are. Are you suggesting that we should lower the Alternate Minimum Tax? Of course you aren't.
"I'm criticizing the "fuzzy numbers" and exaggerations the Bushies have put forth including not being upfront about who will and won't benefit by the massive tax cut he's proposing."
Ummmm, Bush is stressing that his tax cuts will disproportionately (in terms of percentage) benefit the *POOR*, not the rich. It's *GORE* who's claiming the opposite.
It turns out that your new Talking Point supports Bush and calls Gore a liar.
Your conclusion? What else -- that Bush is Evil for making Gore a Liar.
78. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:47:20 AM
IJ, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that SS COLA has any bearing on Fed policy at all. Regardless, what you and Rask are both arguing is that the Fed would counteract any over stimulus of the economy by the tax cut. Again I say, So?
I post *evidence* of inflation acceleration by citing the SS cola number. But apparently you are unable to distinguish evidence from analysis.
The "so what" is that, as in Greenspan's speech today, he attributes the strong economy, strong productivity growth and the capital deepening to a low capital cost environment made possible by the growing federal surplus. If Bush wins and his far less fiscally conservative program comes to fruition, those surpluses will shrink and maybe put us back into deficits again -- and all the negative impacts thereof: slower economic growth, slower productivity, higher inflation, etc.
79. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:50:22 AM
Ace, why don't you check out the analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice to see who gets the tax cuts and whose program is more fiscally conservative...at least they exist unlike that other committee you referred to, to which I can find and apparently you can't find a reference.
80. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:51:40 AM
er...that's I can't find
81. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:55:52 AM
Thoughtful:
Why don't you change your name to "Dumb as a Bag full of Hammers"?
Citizens for Tax Justice is of course a leftist thinktank. You're a moron.
The group I'm talking about, Committee for a Responsible Budget, can be found in a recent article on Salon. Hang on, I'll give you the article.
82. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:58:26 AM
A link to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Government can be found in this article:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/18/bush_road/index.html
83. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:59:19 AM
"Bush disputed Gore's claim that he's "absolutely against big government." "There's a man who's prone to exaggeration," Bush said. The Bush campaign bandies about the recent study by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan independent organization, that Gore's proposals would "produce the largest spending increases since LBJ and the Great Society." For some reason, the Bush campaign neglects to mention that the same group said that Bush's proposals would produce the second largest spending increases since LBJ."
84. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:02:51 AM
What kind of vessel is this SS COLA?
85. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:04:52 AM
I see that Ace is aiming for one of his posts to be deleted so he can start whining about Cellar again. Bit of a childish game in mt view.
86. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:08:19 AM
Pelle,
No, someone who cites "Citizens for Tax Justice" and tries to slide it past someone as an unbiased source deserves to be called a "moron."
Or at least they belong to be called dishonest.
Thoughtful called *me* a moron, implicitly, by assuming that I wouldn't know just who Citizens for Tax Justice are (although their name sort of gives the game away, yes?).
87. Wombat - 10/19/2000 11:08:22 AM
Pelle:
Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA). Note that these never decrease.
88. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:09:34 AM
Thoughtful:
Please cite me NORML's analysis of Bush's tax plan, too. And maybe the Sierra Club's analysis, and maybe NAMBLA's.
89. Wombat - 10/19/2000 11:09:40 AM
Ace:
A quick glance at board members of the organization you cite gives a pretty clear idea of where they're coming from.
90. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:10:30 AM
And has the cost of living ever decreased (after the deflation between the wars)?
91. CalGal - 10/19/2000 11:17:50 AM
You know, I can't believe that Bush is lowering the AMT. Fuck him eternally with a barb wire dildo. Who does he think he is?
92. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:20:33 AM
Cal,
He isn't lowering the AMT. That's the point of Thoughtful's contradictory critique.
93. CalGal - 10/19/2000 11:23:00 AM
Phew. There are not many tax issues that bug me, but the AMT and SocSec get me every time.
94. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:24:14 AM
Big Fat Mama: I Thought Gore Was Gonna Hit Georgie!
95. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 11:32:11 AM
Oh please...if Al had tried to hit GW, I'm sure that little rooster could've defended himself. After all, didn't he once try to get his Daddy to fight?
96. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 11:35:35 AM
No fair fighting Dubya when he's sober.
97. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:38:15 AM
. No "Bushies" are promising big tax cuts to the rich. If
anything, "Bushies" are downplaying the extent to which the rich will benefit, while "Gories" have based their entire campaign on "the
wealthiest 1%."
Gore: Look the problem is that under Gov. Bush's plan, $1.6 trillion in tax cuts goes mostly to the wealthy. Under his own budget numbers, he proposes to spend more money in tax cuts to the top 1% than all the new money he budgets for education, health care and national defense combined....
Lehrer: What do you say specifically to what the Vice President said tonight? He's said it many, many times that your tax cut benefits the top wealthiest 1% of Americans. And you've heard what he just said...
Bush: Of course it does.
98. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 11:38:41 AM
In all honesty, "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" does look, at first glance, to be non-partisan and objective. It is co-chaired by Tim Penny, a deficit hawk, a Democrat, and one of my favorite politicians.
What I am still looking for, however, is anything that backs up Ace's claim from yesterday that Gore's larger spending increases are greater than Bush's larger tax cuts, something he claimed came from the same organization.
99. phydeau - 10/19/2000 11:39:46 AM
It does seem strange that nearly every word spoken by Mr. Gore is pulled from context and parsed beyond recognition to prove his unworthiness, while Mr. Bush rarely suffers even nominal scrutiny of a murky corner of his background: his military service and his business career.
This just about sums up the performance of the "liberal" media. Any fair reporting would reveal Bush as the incompetent, unqualified lightweight that he is. And we gotta have a horse race... polling companies, big media companies, pundits, all depend for their livelihood on people being kept in suspense.
I'm predicting a repeat of 1998, since the "liberal" media hasn't seemed to change their approach or learned their lesson: predictions of Republican victory, actual Democratic victory.
100. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:39:51 AM
"Lehrer: What do you say specifically to what the Vice President said tonight? He's said it many, many times that your tax cut benefits the top wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Bush: Of course it does.
And it does "benefit the wealthiest 1% of Americans." What's your point?
101. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:41:00 AM
"predictions of Republican victory, actual Democratic victory."
Thus, the towering Presidencies of Mssrs Mondale & Dukkakis.
102. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:42:56 AM
Jexster:
Do you think Gore was trying to repeat the success of "The Kiss" by being photographed with a hard-on?
What, precisely, is the electoral math on this?
I'm sure you'd know. The question embraces your two chief interests-- politics, and cocks.
103. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:43:20 AM
The New York Times captures the Bush-whacking: "Gov. George W. Bush plunged into the final three-week stretch of the presidential race today, arguing that Vice President Al Gore would endanger the nation's prosperity and using his own pledge of tax cutting to rally his party's base. Crisscrossing the swing state of Wisconsin
on a glorious fall day, Mr. Bush, a Texas Republican, repeatedly criticized his Democratic opponent as a proponent of big government. 'He's of the government,' Mr. Bush thundered. 'He's for the government. He loves Washington, D.C.' "
(Note to local readers: Do not despair. This happens every four years. Whoever wins discovers that he likes Washington, D.C., especially the rent-free housing, and tries to stay another four years.) Kurtz, Post
104. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:46:10 AM
My point is that of course the Bushies aren't talking about the fact that their tax plan benefits the top 1%. They've been doing all they can to avoid admitting the truth - until Tuesday night when the much-maligned Jim Lehrer finally got Bush to admit the truth of what Gore's been saying for weeks - Bush gives more in tax relief to the top 1% than he does to education, health care and national defense combined.
Got it now?
105. concerned - 10/19/2000 11:47:26 AM
Jay Leno on Alphalfa Bore:
"Al Gore ... he once was pro-life, now he's pro-choice. He once was against gun control, now he's for it. He claimed he invented the Internet. Hey, Gore just needs to debate himself!"
"Al Gore visited a bookstore today. He was shocked to find a book about everything he has said in his campaign could be found in the fiction section."
"Our country has come a long way: first we had George Washington, who couldn't tell a lie. Then we had Bill Clinton, who couldn't tell the truth. And now we have Al Gore, who can't tell the difference..."
Good stuff.
106. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:49:23 AM
But let's not duck another important issue. The Fed has been inching interest rates up steadily to combat what Greenspan obviously believes are inflationary pressures in the economy.
With the economy performing at truly incredible and, indeed, unprecedented levels, a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would be hyper-inflationary, would drive interest rates up like nobody's business, and would bring us right back to stag-flation.
107. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 11:50:54 AM
"With the economy performing at truly incredible and, indeed,
unprecedented levels, a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would be
hyper-inflationary, would drive interest rates up like nobody's business, and would bring us right back to stag-flation."
Oh come on now.
108. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:52:35 AM
Let's put the debate in concrete terms.
In 1987, I bought a Volvo. It cost a bit over $17,000. Today, the comparable car costs about 10K more and yet the monthly payments are about the same.
Why?
Interest rates.
109. concerned - 10/19/2000 11:52:51 AM
What, me worry?
Future Senator from Connecticut
110. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:53:57 AM
Rask - You argue, I take it, that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would not be inflationary?
111. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:54:33 AM
"Jim Lehrer finally got Bush to admit the truth of what Gore's been saying for weeks - Bush gives more in tax relief to the top 1% than he does to education, health care and national defense combined."
Ummm, as usual, you read whatever pleases you into a statement or article.
Read your quote again. Bush "admitted" that his tax "benefits" the wealthiest 1%, as it benefits all taxpayers.
He did not "admit" the rest of the bullshit. Jim Lehrer said no such thing, and Bush admitted to no such thing.
In fact, the top 1% get $149 billion over ten years, whereas Bush spends $249 billion over ten years in new spending on those four programs.
And it's an idiotic statistic, anyway. Tax cuts affect MILLIONS of people. New spending affects a far smaller number. Of course any tax cut will exceed the spending on any DOZEN of programs.
If Bush proposed a tax cut of $10 to every American, that would be a $2.7 billion dollar tax cut -- and that figure would dwarf spending on, say, honey subsidies, security at overseas bases and embassies, and Americorps.
So what?
112. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 11:56:45 AM
Ace:
Have you actually seen the photos of Gores pants? Care to link to it for us or are we just supposed to take yours and Drudges word for it? Or the word of an editor trying to sell magazines?
113. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:58:58 AM
If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted, a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone. Even now, Brookings is questioning the CBO budget projections because Congress and The President have already busted 1997 Budget Act caps.
A trillion here, a trillion there and you have real deficits. Unless you buy into Laffer economic quakery, a cut of that size means big deficits. Big deficits mean high interest rates.
The fed has been increasing interest rates for a year now because Greenspan fears inflation. Long term interest rates have been inching back up after falling for years.
It ain't that hard to figger Rask
114. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:00:28 PM
Where in God's name do you get your goof-ball numbers from. Certainly not from Bush Ace.
Drudge perhaps or did you just dig them out of your underwear?
115. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:00:30 PM
"Rask - You argue, I take it, that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would not be inflationary?"
No, I just can't take seriously claims that it would be hyperinflationary, lead to massive interest rate hikes, and cause a return to stagflation.
116. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:00:38 PM
"Have you actually seen the photos of Gores pants?"
Sort of. It's posted at Rollingstone.com, but it's a small non-enlargeable picture, and it's already been airbrushed, anyway.
" Care to link to it for us or are we just supposed to take yours and Drudges word for it?"
Yes yes, Drudge has been wrong sooooo many times. And at any rate: Once again, the story comes not from Drudge but from Inside.com, from whom he got the story.
"Or the word of an editor trying to sell magazines?"
The editor at Rolling Stone? Jann Wenner, the buttboy who just licked Gore's ass in print and begs the reader to vote for Gore?
Or the editor at Inside.com, perhaps fishing for a nice fat million dollar libel suit?
In any event, it's the talk of the town here in NY -- Imus is talking it up. Hell, The View with Barbra Walters is talking Boner-Gate up!
117. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:03:17 PM
I agree that it is bad fiscal policy, though, simply for budget balancing reasons.
118. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:06:03 PM
"If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted"
$1.3 trillion, dope.
"a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone."
Wrong. It is not based on a Rosy Scenario -- it's based on very conservative projections. Surpluses will be bigger than predicted, *if* present trends hold or even decline somewhat.
"Even now, Brookings is questioning the CBO budget projections because Congress and The President have already busted 1997 Budget Act caps."
No shit. But President *BUSH* will not force Congress to bust those caps by threatening a budget shut-down in an election year. Republican President + Republican Congress = Smaller Budgets.
Whatta moron.
119. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:06:59 PM
Looks like Ace has learned a thing or two from Bill. Parse, parse parse....
Bush stepped smartly into his own pile of shit.
He has never disputed the truth of Gore's charge. If he did not admit it in a legal sense, he did so in all other senses.
120. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:07:20 PM
Ha, ha, ha.
Jexster claims that Bush's budget will run into deficits based on President *Clinton's* drunken-sailor budget increases.
Does jism kill brain cells?
121. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:07:43 PM
Its 1.6 trillion goof ball. Bush counts only 9 years instead of 10.
122. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:09:07 PM
I would think that Ace might find it a reasonable idea to know what his candidate has proposed before he sallies forth to make war.
123. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:10:21 PM
I claim that Bush's economic projections and his tax cuts are malarky.
I claim that the Ace of Spades does not know shit from shinola.
Big news that is!
124. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:13:16 PM
"Wrong. It is not based on a Rosy Scenario -- it's based on very
conservative projections. Surpluses will be bigger than predicted, *if* present trends hold or even decline somewhat. "
Phooey, they are not "very conservative". The projections hold if we experience no recessions, ignore the Medicare trust fund surplus, and hold domestic spending at levels completely unrealistic even for Republicans. You make it sound like Clinton forced Congress at gunpoint to exceed the 1997 spending caps. Regardless though, Bush is selling himself as a conciliator who can work with Democrats, not someone who will be hardnosed and force Democrats in Congress to conform to spending caps.
125. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:14:39 PM
Mr. Bush presumably wants to convey the sense that he's a compassionate guy who really cares about education, the environment and all that. But that doesn't excuse claiming to spend twice as much on these good things as the number given in his own budget.
He continued: "But there's still a quarter unspent, about $1.3 trillion [the size of Mr. Bush's tax cut]. I think we ought to send it back to the people who pay the bills." Alas, 4 times 1.3 is 5.2, not 4.6 — and anyway, the full budget cost of that tax cut, including interest, is $1.6 trillion, more than a third of the projected surplus
Ooops! He Did It Again
126. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:17:00 PM
Hell, *Bush* is proposing new domestic spending and no spending cuts. You think Congress is likely to be less profligate?
127. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:18:10 PM
"You make it sound like Clinton forced Congress at gunpoint to exceed the 1997 spending caps."
He did, dummy. Have you not read a newspaper in ten weeks?
Have you not read a single story about how Clinton is threatening a government shutdown & keeping Republicans in DC (when they'd really like to just go home to campaign), forcing them to spend more than they want?
There have been dozens of stories: Republicans on verge of surrender, etc.
And he did the same thing in 1998 and 1999.
Rask, I swear to Christ, I really don't know if you're stupid or hopelessly partisan.
128. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:19:31 PM
"Regardless though, Bush is selling himself as a conciliator who can work with Democrats, not someone who will be hardnosed and force Democrats in Congress to conform to spending caps."
Duhhhhhhh. He doesn't have to be a "conciliator" if the R's control the Presidency & both Houses of Congress.
129. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:21:20 PM
And Ace: the 4.6 trillion surplus assumes that the surplus will be used to spend down the debt, reducing interest payments and creating further surplusses. Hence, Bush's tax cut has an additional affect of reducing the size of future surpluses. That is one reason why you keep seeing different numbers bandies around for the size of Bush's tax cut. His "1.3 trillion" ignores interest costs. I also recall reading that he is only counting 9 years of tax cuts, which is why the size of his tax cuts often gets pushed to 1.9 trillion, but I can't recall where I read that.
130. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:22:14 PM
Jesus Christ, Rask, this really pisses me off.
Are you really claiming you don't remember the stories in 1998 and 1999 about how Clinton always "beats Republicans at budget time," how he always gets his way by threatening a shutdown and forcing them to eat the blame again, etc.
If you did not read these stories, you obviously do not follow politics very carefully. It's not like these were buried stories.
These were huge stories in the NYT, WP, etc. Clinton's success in bullying Congress is trumpeted by friend and foe alike.
Jesus God All-Mighty.
131. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:23:35 PM
"the 4.6 trillion surplus assumes that the surplus will be used to spend down the debt"
No it doesn't. It doesn't assume anything. CBO projections are based on current spending levels.
132. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:23:38 PM
I had to laugh at powerful Clinton forcing Congressional Republicans to stay in DC.
In 1995, they declared the president irrelevant, and unlike previous Congresses, they were quite willing to shut down the government to get their way -- something they did twice that year.
133. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:25:06 PM
"He did, dummy. Have you not read a newspaper in ten weeks? Have you not read a single story about how Clinton is threatening a government shutdown & keeping Republicans in DC (when they'd really like to just go home to campaign), forcing them to spend more than they want?"
I know Clinton wants more, but are the Republican proposals in line with the spending caps?
"Duhhhhhhh. He doesn't have to be a "conciliator" if the R's control the Presidency & both Houses of Congress."
But this is no guarantee. The House looks like a toss-up and there is even a slim possibility of losing the Senate. Is it "conservative" to ignore the strong possibility of Democrats controlling at least one of the houses?
134. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:25:17 PM
"I had to laugh at powerful Clinton forcing Congressional Republicans to stay in DC."
Jesus. Someone else who doesn't read the newspapers.
He is forcing them to stay in DC, by refusing to sign a budget. They *must stay* until they have passed a budget.
Clinton is keeping Congress in session as long as possible to 1) get them to agree to higher spending and 2) give them as little chance as possible to campaign at home.
135. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:25:35 PM
The shutdowns took place over winter 95-96
136. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:27:03 PM
I laugh because they thought they could shut down the government and get away with it. They did shut it down, and it worked against them. Now they're scared shitless.
137. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:27:14 PM
"I know Clinton wants more, but are the Republican proposals in line with the spending caps?"
Probably not -- because they know Clinton won't accept such a lowball figure, and the guy with the biggest megaphone will kill them if they aren't "generous" with pork & wasteful spending.
They wouldn't have that to fear with a Republican president.
138. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 12:28:22 PM
Thoughtful:
I post *evidence* of inflation acceleration by citing the SS cola number. But apparently you are unable to distinguish evidence from analysis.
The COLA is retroactive for inflation that has already occurred throughout the past year. So citing it as inflation acceleration (as you now claim you were doing) is laughable or dishonest. The Fed has already raised interest rates throughout the year to react to earlier inflation figures.
Why not cite the most recent CPI figures instead? In August, the index actually declined. In September it went up 0.5, based almost solely on energy costs--not an over-heating economy.
As for Citizens for Tax Justice, this is where we went round about before, yet you still trot them out again. "Justice" is an economics term? When unable to argue what is economically more efficient, we fall back on nebulous moral concepts, which because of the personal morality involved, leave liberals with the intellectual grayness they need for their arguments to not be punctured like hot air balloons.
But we've done this before and you at long last conceded that Bush's plan was more progressive than the one currently in place. If "more just" = "more progressive," Bush's plan is more just.
You just don't like lower taxes and so far the best argument you have made is envy.
139. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 12:28:30 PM
(cont.)
Now, about whether I mischaracterized you as "alarmist," here's what you originally said:
For example, Bush's large tax cut can easily cause the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral, squelching economic growth raising unemployment and damaging investment and productivity. The idea that anyone would make those kinds of decisions on 'instinct' is the most frightening thing I've heard yet about this election.
Perhaps you meant Bush's tax cut would cause a tiny inflationary spiral, a tiny increase in unemployment and miniscule damage to investment and productivity. If so, please state as much and I will withdraw my characterization of the above as alarmist. Even so, I wonder that you would be so "frightened" by the method by which someone arrives at a decision of so little consequence.
140. concerned - 10/19/2000 12:28:54 PM
Re. 132 -
Contrary to the spin, Clowntoon shut down the government both times. He had the continuing resolutions right in front of him and refused to sign them. The result: shutdown.
End of story.
141. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:28:55 PM
"They did shut it down, and it worked against them. Now they're scared shitless."
This isn't quite right. Congress & the President *both* shut it down by failing to agree on a budget, and failing to agree to pass further CR's.
142. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:31:51 PM
"No it doesn't. It doesn't assume anything. CBO projections are based 143. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:32:31 PM CBO projections. 144. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:34:46 PM Those newspapers back in 95 & 96 quoting Congressional Republicans saying that they were not afraid of shutting down the govenment must have been misquoting them. 145. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:35:47 PM "Take a look at the CBO's projections and you can see for yourself that they project interest payments to drop over time as the debt is paid down." 146. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:38:20 PM 147. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:47:32 PM 148. Dusty - 10/19/2000 12:55:35 PM jexster 149. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:03:09 PM "Umm, Rask? Isn't this "debt" you talk about interest on T-bills? And 150. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:04:27 PM Scholastic apparently conducts polls of grade-schoolers every election. 151. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:09:26 PM "In any event, I refuse to believe that CBO projections assume that the government will do this or will do that in the future." 152. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:11:18 PM Rask, 153. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:15:11 PM Ace-I'm sure you'd know. The question embraces your two chief interests--politics, and cocks. 154. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:16:32 PM Eat me, Jones. 155. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:16:55 PM Does jism kill brain cells? see above post from host. 156. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:19:39 PM Ace- I have a son who was once two years old and a handful. I have taught in inner city schools, and have taught eighth graders, I have more than enough patience to deal with any tantrums you might have in mind. Knock yourself out. 157. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:23:52 PM 158. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:25:44 PM Actually, you could run a deficit each year and still reduce total debt relative to the total economy. For instance, if you have a 5 tril debt, a 3% inflation rate, and run 100 bil deficits each year, at the end of 20 years, you will have accumulated an additional 2 tril debt. However, inflation will have depreciated the total indebtedness to the equivalent of 3.5 tril current dollars. I'm not even including productivity or population increases in all of this. 159. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 1:27:50 PM Ace, I thought it might be worthwhile having a discussion with you as long as you could control your childish impulse to call people names -- as if that was a valid substitute for thought. You were able to control yourself with me for awhile, for which I congratulate you. Obviously your immaturity won out. 160. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:30:36 PM 162. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:32:15 PM 163. Dusty - 10/19/2000 1:36:34 PM AceofSpades 164. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:38:40 PM "No, I detect a pattern from *you*, buddy. It isn't necessary to run a 166. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:38:50 PM "CBO projections, as I understand them, make no "assumptions" about what Congress will do with its money. If they made such assumptions, 167. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 1:41:06 PM Ace: 168. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:44:32 PM "Assuming no new debt accumulated over the next several years, and 169. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:45:52 PM And since you have now at least browsed the CBO report, do you see where they project government debt service to decrease as a result of te surpluses? 170. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:46:53 PM 171. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:47:23 PM concerned: "Actually, you could run a deficit each year and still reduce total debt relative to the total economy." 172. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:48:00 PM Re. 171 - 173. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:51:03 PM "My contention with you is that I believe the cost of retiring the debt is already factored into the CBO numbers, and that they are not assuming *additional* debt-retirement in their charts." 174. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:51:33 PM Posts 161 and 165 deleted as duplicates. 175. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:52:01 PM Basically Ace, you are creating a false distinction. There is no debt retirement without using the surpluses to pay down debt. Period. Full stop. 176. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 1:54:14 PM Well, the Republicans must be overjoyed that they have another penis to focus on....we may get crossover votes, who knows? 177. Cellar Door - 10/19/2000 1:56:16 PM Why Dan Savage isn't voting for Ralph Nader. 178. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:56:56 PM Re. 176 - 179. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:57:23 PM "They can't retire debt without running surpluses. If someone redeems an IOU, and you have no way to pay it off, the only way to repay is by issuing another one." 180. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:58:19 PM ...so that, without devoting the "surplus" futher to retiring the debt, the debt continues indefinitely. 181. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:00:30 PM 182. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 2:02:00 PM Concerned: 183. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:04:57 PM 184. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:07:45 PM 185. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:08:21 PM Drudge has confirmed that Gore in fact had an erection? 186. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 2:09:12 PM Nader is not the populist he claims to be. He did not participate in the cyber debates conducted by the Red White and Blue coalition, though he was invited to. Instead, he sought ink trying to crash the televised debates. While I understand his desire to advocate his issues to the largest audience possible, and thus participate in the CPD forum, he passed on an opportunity to do the same thing in the comming forum of this century-the internet. 187. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:10:09 PM "And you're saying the CBO projections do not already assume we pay 188. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:13:40 PM 189. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:15:04 PM 190. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:19:29 PM "I believe (tentatively now) that the surplus is the surplus in excess of both interest payments *and* the cost of retiring each bill as it becomes due." 191. marshame - 10/19/2000 2:23:40 PM I haven't seen any discussion about Gore's unbelievable statement in debate #3 that any person making over $350k will get a tax cut greater than the combined total of everyone else in the room!! How could Gore get away with such a preposterous statement? 192. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:26:54 PM Marshame: 193. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:27:51 PM (which is obviously not "the middle of the middle class." But then Gore likes to use language in new and strange ways, such as defining tax cuts as government spending and spending on the poor as tax cuts.) 194. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:35:30 PM Character assassination 195. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:37:08 PM 196. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:37:13 PM How much of a 'tax break' can you get if you are already paying no net Federal Income Taxes, due to transfer payments, EITC, etc.? 197. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:37:35 PM From the above article 198. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:37:43 PM IJ, The SS cola *is* based on the inflation figures released yesterday --it's not based on the calendar year, so it *is* a current measure of inflation. If you want September figures, fine. Ex food and energy, cpi inflation rose 0.3% the highest pace since March. There is nothing laughable or dishonest about citing inflation figures over a period of time as that's how inflation is measured. 199. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:38:05 PM 200. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:39:35 PM concerned: The EITC was a bit of "socialism" that was the brainchild of the Reagan Administration, and is very similar to the Negative Income Tax plan of that noted Communist, Richard Nixon. 201. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:39:52 PM Now I can see why. 'U2 Barenaked Ladies' right next to Pinocchio's woody? 202. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:40:24 PM 203. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:42:10 PM Re. 200 - 204. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:43:19 PM It is expected yet enduringly amusing that the mere specter of the clearly stupid Bush defeating the oh-so-capable Gore would bring about a blame the media/blame the people/blame the vast right-wing conspiracy moaning. I'm reminded of the Colts bitching "fix" when Namath made good on his promise. 205. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:43:28 PM Freudian slip?.....addiction..... 206. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:43:58 PM "I have no criticism of the EITC (which a certain pathological liar & crook who shall momentarily remain nameless falsely claimed credit for). " 207. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:44:05 PM Rask: 208. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:44:09 PM Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 209. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:45:16 PM Actually, it appeasr his penis emanates from his belly button, confirming my long held suspicion that he is from planet Orgon. 210. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:46:37 PM Re. - 211. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:46:39 PM Or maybe it is yet another subtle rejection of Clintonism, who, according to Ms. Flowers, was not spectacularly endowed. 212. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:46:53 PM Jack, 213. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:47:04 PM Jack: I have heard that stat bandied around a lot. I don't know if it is true, but if false it wouldn't be a lie, rather an uncritical parroting of a common factoid. 214. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:47:28 PM Message # 188: Thank you, Dr. Ace! However, I was merely referring to the possibility that an embarassing fold in the pants gave the appearance of an erection. 215. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:47:44 PM I still disagree that the economic scenario I described was alarmist -- in fact it rather describes the experience of the 1980s: high deficits, inflation, the fed responding with high interest rates, resulting in low rates of investment and productivity growth -- but that obviously is nothing we are going to resolve. I still do find it alarming that anyone would think it's ok to put the nation in the hands of someone who makes decisions on *instinct* or only understanding the *good side* of every argument without understanding the costs. But that too is something we will not agree on. 216. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:49:48 PM BTW, IJ, it's not envy....I'm in one of the highest tax brackets and would stand to benefit substantially from Bush's tax cut. 217. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:50:18 PM Ace: I don't dispute anything in message 207, although I am sure I am bothered by it much less than you are. Orwellian doublespeak is common to both parties. 218. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:51:30 PM "I was merely referring to the possibility that an embarassing fold in the pants gave the appearance of an erection." 219. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:53:13 PM Dude, it is not puff up. It is 220. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:53:53 PM From the Colombia Journalism Review: 221. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:54:50 PM Tipper must have been the photographer. We know she is a shutterbug. 222. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:55:05 PM Re. 206 - 223. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:55:23 PM "Journalists' assertions about Bush's character were more than twice as likely than Gore's to be unsupported by any evidence. In other words, they were pure opinion, rather than journalistic analysis." 224. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:56:00 PM "But standing? How can your pants "fold" to create the illusion of a 225. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:56:57 PM Jack, don't worry, I didn't expect you to understand that. 226. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:57:50 PM phydeau 227. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:58:31 PM 228. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:58:55 PM Here's a Bore lie about McCain-Feingold similar to his EITC claim, just to show how he operates: 229. phydeau - 10/19/2000 3:00:20 PM So, focusing on Gore's penis rather than his policies; you Republicans see this as a winning strategy? 230. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:00:50 PM 231. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:01:39 PM Gore's not even President yet, and we're already discussing his cock. 232. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:01:53 PM The SS cola *is* based on the inflation figures released yesterday -- it's not based on the calendar year, so it *is* a current measure of inflation. 233. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:02:48 PM "He didn't author it. As a matter of fact he nver authored *anything* related to the EITC at any time. Plus, he didn't enter Congress until two years after it was enacted." 234. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:03:16 PM Wow. You Gore supporters must be glum. I still your boy is going to win, but win or lose, he's packing a Fudgsicle in his trunks and you want to talk about the EITC and the biased media. 235. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:03:26 PM Note: The second italicized portion of my post is not from Thoughtful but from the SSA. 236. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:03:44 PM 237. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:04:26 PM By the way . . . 238. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:04:45 PM 239. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:05:25 PM Who was it that coined the nickname for Gore of "Big Crotch"? 240. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:05:53 PM Earth in My Pants. 241. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:06:14 PM 242. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:06:46 PM "If the entirety of both the SS surplus AND general revenues were devoted to a SS "lockbox," Social Security would *still* go bankrupt. " 243. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:07:11 PM Raskolnikov 244. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:08:37 PM Al Diggler. 245. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:09:27 PM Actually Jack, based on that photo, if Gore's shlong becomes a public issue, I fear Bush is DOA. If LBJ can intimidate the Vietnamese with his, Gore is sure as shit to scare any Texan out of the race. 246. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:10:36 PM Raskolnikov 247. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:11:10 PM Rask 248. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 3:11:18 PM Gore is the victim of bad airbrush work. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is a tent pole in khaki's- 249. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:11:44 PM "I don't think so. I think you bought into the spin. But I'll check." 250. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:12:37 PM "Doesn't Gore have a staff . . . ?" 251. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:13:29 PM I love that picture. 252. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:13:36 PM Jack, 253. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:14:16 PM "Doesn't Gore have a staff to check such things?" 254. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:14:44 PM 255. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:15:13 PM Ohio 256. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:15:20 PM "Bush hasn't apologized for his errors (and keeps repeating them)" 257. concerned - 10/19/2000 3:16:02 PM From a Linda Chavez column: 'Gore partly to blame for uninsured children': 258. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:16:11 PM Raskolnikov 259. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:16:43 PM Stop this. 260. concerned - 10/19/2000 3:17:44 PM Any errors in my last post are mine. I typed it in from a newspaper editorial. 261. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:17:50 PM 262. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:18:20 PM 263. Al D - 10/19/2000 3:18:21 PM Jack 264. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:18:23 PM "Which errors are these?" 265. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:18:33 PM I think we have a title for our political romance novel. 266. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:19:27 PM "It is Tipper's lunch." 267. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:20:49 PM Brokaw: "Doubts have been raised about both your veracity and your ability to connect with the voter, Mr. Vice President. How do you respond? 268. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:20:52 PM Gore 2000: You ain't seen nothing yet! 269. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:21:06 PM "His budget errors. The "1/4 goes to this" shtick. Krugman has well documented these." 270. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:22:29 PM "You said "errorS." This is a single "error," and quite debatable." 271. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:23:34 PM 272. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:25:28 PM 273. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:26:00 PM I'll respond to Message # 255 since it was addressed to me. (Jones, please don't ban me for going off-topic!) 274. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:27:28 PM 275. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:28:03 PM (Jack: Surely you've read the RNC press release on Gore's debate statement about pharmaceutical advertising. Why don't you share it with us?) 276. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:29:00 PM Al Gore: 277. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:31:24 PM 278. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 3:32:09 PM It's a long time since I actually laughed out loud in front of the screen. Jack's #265 made me do it. 279. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:33:14 PM 280. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:38:03 PM LEHRER: Governor, time is up, sir. 281. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:44:00 PM This is really so bizarre. 282. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:46:32 PM 283. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:47:33 PM It really is bizarre. 284. Al D - 10/19/2000 3:47:51 PM I'm more concerned about Celler's reaction. 285. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:48:49 PM 286. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:50:06 PM Gore already has the gay vote. But it will probably raise his poll numbers with sports car drivers, atheletes, wall street brokers, Howard Stern, and porn stars. 287. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:50:19 PM Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 288. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:51:25 PM Rask 289. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:51:40 PM 290. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:52:43 PM That is just what he *wanted* Republicans to think. 291. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:53:13 PM Al Gore: Now you know why Tipper is always smiling! 292. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:54:06 PM No wonder Tipper looks glassy-eyed and exhausted. 293. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:55:12 PM 294. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:56:31 PM 295. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:58:33 PM 296. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:00:14 PM GORE: I care a lot about this. It's not just movies, television, video games, music, the Internet. Parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have. 297. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:02:42 PM Clinton says gays feel his pain 298. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:03:57 PM I just hope Clinton has felt pain at the urging of the cobra. 299. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:04:43 PM Indy: 300. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:04:44 PM Ace (295): I'd been working on a riff for that one, but you got it right. 301. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:05:59 PM Gore: "Well, when I got to Love Canal, it wasn't at that time called 'Love Canal.' But I let my Boris do his Natasha, and the rest is history." 302. marshame - 10/19/2000 4:07:18 PM 303. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:08:14 PM marsha 304. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:09:27 PM 305. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:09:47 PM 306. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:10:38 PM Ace 307. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:10:50 PM 308. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:11:38 PM To Arafat and Barak: 309. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:12:00 PM 310. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:13:12 PM "Man, I've been vice-president four years while he's been getting tail left and right. My dick gets hard when the wind blows." 311. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:14:03 PM So why does Gore exaggerate his accomplishments? 312. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:15:01 PM Reckon Al has put his pot smoking behind him. 313. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:15:47 PM 314. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:16:41 PM Hee-hee. 315. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:17:25 PM "I had thought of Al Gore as a model for Oliver Barrett, but I didn't really envision Oliver with a cock the size and dimension of a fungo bat." 316. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:17:40 PM 317. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:18:50 PM 318. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:20:10 PM 319. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:20:51 PM Ace 320. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:21:05 PM I thought Foont died after choking on the foam coming from his mouth. 321. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:22:24 PM Jack,
on current spending levels."
As well as current taxation levels! You have this interesting habit of confidently making pronouncements about things you know jack shit about. Take a look at the CBO's
Screwed up the link.
Umm, Rask? Isn't this "debt" you talk about interest on T-bills? And aren't T-bills naturally retired at various years?
In other words --aren't T-bills which are due to be paid off paid off in the normal course of government operations, *without* additional debt retirement?
And that debt is not replaced with new debt, because there's no need to issue new debt when you're running 1) a surplus or 2) a balanced budget.
No response, Rask? Or are you busy?
In any event, I refuse to believe that CBO projections assume that the government will do this or will do that in the future.
CBO projections are verrrry *mechanical* estimates. They are not dynamic; they are based on static assumptions.
If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted, a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone.
Why is it gone? Is that the reduction in the first year? I thought that was a multi-year (ten?) figure.
Are you saying that if a tax cut is enacted, it cannot be reversed for at least ten years, no matter what happens?
aren't T-bills naturally retired at various years?"
Yes, but without surpluses, the debt is simply reissued. The Treasury can choose to, and does, buy the debt back early on the open market, but this isn't part of the CBO assumptions.
"In other words -- aren't T-bills which are due to be paid off paid off in the normal course of government operations, *without* additional debt retirement?"
If you simply issue another 90 day T Bill to pay off one another, you haven't retired any debt.
"And that debt is not replaced with new debt, because there's no need to issue new debt when you're running 1) a surplus or 2) a balanced budget."
Look. If you have 5 trillion in debt, most of which expires in short time periods, and you are running surpluses of a 100 billion a year, *of course* you have to issue new debt. You simply aren't running the surpluses necessary to pay off each T Bill as it comes due.
In other words, reduced debt service is part of the anticipated surplus. If you cut taxes, or increase spending, you not only reduce the surplus by the amount of the program, but also by the larger interest payments which result. A much better tack would be to ask if Gore adjusts his tax and spend proposals in the same way. I honestly don't know if he does.
Ace, there is a pattern here. You state some half-baked, uninformed fact like it was a papal bull, and when corrected, you find yourself locked into an untenable position and begin to engage huge logical contortions. We would both save a hell of a lot of time if you either: 1) bothered to look up more things before talking about them, avoiding getting locked into blunders, 2) asked questions first, without committing yourself to a hopeless position, or 3) dropped the argument when corrected.
These Scholastic polls have predicted the winner of the last nine elections. Sure, the kids can't vote, but kids can detect charm and presence and such, the same stuff adults vote on, even if they don't usually admit it.
Plus, kids hear stuff from their usually married parents, who are among the most likely voters in the land.
At any rate, the results:
Bush carried every state, except RI, NY, and CT, and carried every grade. He won 54-40%.
I admit this is terribly, terribly silly.
But then-- it's predicted the last nine elections.
Who knows?
Read the fucking link and see for yourself.
"CBO projections are verrrry *mechanical* estimates. They are not
dynamic; they are based on static assumptions."
Yes. Static assumptions are that spending patterns stay the same, taxation patterns stay the same, and that the government follows standard policy of borrowing or paying down debt when running deficits or surpluses. You think the assume the government borrows money interest free or just lets surplus cash sit under a mattress at the Treasury?
If you look at the link, which is the *source* for the budget projections, you will see, in black and white, in Table 1-10, figures showing the CBO projecting lower interest payments as surpluses accrue. Followed by a statement of "If surpluses accrue as projected, much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years".
No, I detect a pattern from *you*, buddy. It isn't necessary to run a "surplus" in order to retire debt -- it's simply necessary to run a *balanced budget*, for then no additional debt needs be reissued.
I think you're wrong. I think, quite frankly, you are guilty of precisely what you accuse me of -- you make shit up left and right, try to pass yourself off as an expert, or at least an informed amateur, in fields well beyond your debt, and generally sound like an idiot.
CBO projections, as I understand them, make no "assumptions" about what Congress will do with its money. If they made such assumptions, their projections could say *anything,* for they could assume the government would spend zero dollars, or that the economy would grow by 50%.
They are static projections. They do not "assume" that Al Gore will be president and will spend a certain level of money on additional debt retirement. If they *WERE* to make such assumptions, why on earth should they assume Al Gore would be president, rather than GW Bush, who does not plan to spend ANY additional dollars on debt reduction?
And *HOW MUCH* additional debt reduction would they assume? What Al Gore proposes? Half of what Al Gore proposes? More than Al Gore proposes?
No, they proceed from what we're spending today.
If you have an authoritative cite -- and no, I don't mean another one of your dumb-shit amateur-hour "I can draw a table" monographs -- please cite it, and I will concede the point.
If not, stop trying to brow-beat me into believing you know what the fuck you're talking about (I won't believe that, because you don't), and stick it up your fucking ass.
Please remember this when you next choose to whine about someone else's hardball posts. So far, I have been tolerant of such posts, thinking that they speak as much about the speaker as the target. However, if the thread degenerates, the above post would get sent to the inferno as well as any responding to you or anyone else in kind.
"The path of interest costs depends on the size and composition of the federal debt. If surpluses accrue as projected, much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years; however, a part of it--including some long-term bonds and savings bonds--will not be available for redemption during CBO's 10-year projection period. Therefore, in any given year, some debt will remain outstanding and incur interest costs, regardless of the size of the surplus. That minimum level of outstanding debt will decline each year, CBO estimates, eventually falling to $830 billion by 2010 (see Table 1-11). Once the minimum is reached, the baseline accounts for any excess cash from the surplus separately and does not consider the proceeds generated by investing that cash as part of net interest. Under CBO's current budget outlook, by 2007 each version of the baseline will be at the estimated minimum level of debt for the entire year and will therefore have identical net interest costs."
I read this as meaning:
Assuming no new debt accumulated over the next several years, and assuming that current debt is paid as scheduled (as of course it must be), the level of debt will reach Level X, without assuming any legislative initiatives to pay off long-term debt on an accelerated schedule.
This doesn't mean that I'm advocating running any particular deficit - just pointing out why the chicken little hand waving about current proposed tax cuts is bullshit.
I'm done.
Thoughtful,
I'm not particularly interested in having a "discussion" for someone so shamelessly self-contradictory and inconsistent. It's like arguing with a child.
And someone who criticizes a tax plan for "giving too much to the rich," and then, with nary a bit of intellectual remorse, then criticizes the same plan for failing to give *more* to the rich, is obviously fairly childish and not someone with whom an intelligent conversation can be had.
re Message # 150
Please see Message # 1711 in thread 77 where I said bascially the same thing. Although I thank you for reminding me of the precise publication.
"surplus" in order to retire debt -- it's simply necessary to run a
*balanced budget*, for then no additional debt needs be reissued."
This is mindbogglingly inane. If you don't run surpluses, debt cannot be retired. When the term on a 90 day T Bill ends, what happens? You, in effect, are saying that the government doesn't have to repay it. But they do. If they aren't running enough surpluses to pay it off, they simply issue more debt.
"I think you're wrong. I think, quite frankly, you are guilty of precisely what you accuse me of -- you make shit up left and right, try to pass yourself off as an expert, or at least an informed amateur, in fields well beyond your debt, and generally sound like an idiot."
I'll stake my reputation for accuracy up against yours anyday. Regarding expertise, I have a Masters in policy analysis, which is a hodge podge of econ, accounting, stats, public budgeting, and political science. I am also employed as a policy analyst, applying these same skills. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, but I would argue that my mere employment exempts me from amateur status on policy issues. But none of the stuff I am talking about even requires any knowledge of econ or public budgeting, which is why I am getting pissed off. All it requires is common sense accounting, basic arithmetic, and the ability to read a web page that you have now been directed to for the third time.
their projections could say *anything,* for they could assume the
government would spend zero dollars, or that the economy would grow
by 50%."
Congress doesn't vote on whether to pay down debt or borrow. They delegated that power to the Treasury Department, which has established policies on how they issue or pay off debt. So CBO doesn't *need* to make assumptions about what Congress will do. They just need to assume that the Treasury follows established policy.
"If you have an authoritative cite -- and no, I don't mean another one of your dumb-shit amateur-hour "I can draw a table" monographs --
please cite it, and I will concede the point."
For the 4th fucking time, read the linked CBO report that is the source for the surplus projections.
"If not, stop trying to brow-beat me into believing you know what the
fuck you're talking about (I won't believe that, because you don't), and stick it up your fucking ass."
The fact that I *have* linked this is why I am getting pissed off. I shouldn't have to be lecturing you about something you are quite capable of reading yourself.
I had to leave but found your response about Gores pants to be funny in one respect: saying Jann Wenner was kissing Gores ass all this time...excuse me, but Jann has been known to change his mind on things of importance in his life one or two times before....big time.
assuming that current debt is paid as scheduled (as of course it must be), the level of debt will reach Level X, without assuming any
legislative initiatives to pay off long-term debt on an accelerated
schedule."
Partially. It's primary point is that the Treasury might have to hold some cash for awhile when waiting for T Bills to come due. But if surpluses don't exceed T-Bills coming due, the Treasury has no choice but to issue new debt. You know, despite the fact that we are running surpluses, you can still buy 90 day T-Bills right now. I own some.
Judith:
Well, the man concludes the interview by urging readers to vote for Gore. I mean, what the hell.
Rush Limbaugh, being conspiratorially-minded, believes that the story was deliberately manufactured by Gore & Wenner, hoping to impress women with his package. Joy Behar on The View claims that women will vote for Gore when they see the size of his (airbrush-altered) package, for example.
Rask:
My contention with you is that I believe the cost of retiring the debt is already factored into the CBO numbers, and that they are not assuming *additional* debt-retirement in their charts.
Do you get what I am saying?
Let me try again:
You believe the CBO numbers and projections are based upon devoting the surplus to debt retirement.
I believe their numbers and projections are based upon current rates of debt retirement. Non-enhanced.
Sure, but that isn't what we are talking about.
I know, but I thought I should add the perspective.
What do you mean by "debt retirement" being included in contrast to "additional debt retirement"? They can't retire debt without running surpluses. If someone redeems an IOU, and you have no way to pay it off, the only way to repay is by issuing another one.
I can't believe I even have to argue this point. A 5 year old could understand this.
Well, if you Democrats would only stop nominating dorks for the presidency....
And you're saying the CBO projections do not already assume we pay the debt as it becomes due?
I am taking "surplus" to mean the surplus above all obligations, including the cost of paying off, and retiring, debt as it becomes due, without the need to issue further debt to replace the old debt.
You are saying it means only the surplus above interest payments on debt.
In other words:
I believe (tentatively now) that the surplus is the surplus in excess of both interest payments *and* the cost of retiring each bill as it becomes due.
You are telling me the surplus only exceeds the cost of interest payments on debt, only the cost of *maintaining* the debt, only the cost of paying interest on old bills to be replaced by new debt as the old debt is retired.
People make a big todo over someones penis and you think it's the owners fault? Such logic, my my....
Judith:
Gore got a hard-on during a photo-shoot for Rolling Stone, and yet continued with the shoot, rather than "calming himself."
I think this is pretty fucking weird. Did he do this absent-mindedly? I can harldy believe this; every man knows when he's sproutin' and showin' wood.
Did he do this deliberately? If so, what the hell does that say?
You claim not to be a Gore supporter.
If this is so, can't you bring yourself to admitting that, if the story is true, it's fucking weird?
I mean, Judith:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would be tickled pink if that apocryphal photo of a naked GWB on a table showed up, right?
And yet...
A grown man, running for President, gets a hard-on during a photo-shoot... knowing he will be on the cover... and he continues the shoot in full wooden glory...
And you say-- Geeze, it's your problem if you make an issue of his dick.
Judith, you are not being fair-minded here. If the story is true, there is no getting around the fact that it's... disquieting, to say the least.
I don't know how he did it, but that is one dedicated investigative reporter.
He states that he offers an alternative to the two parties which he claims are essentially the same. But he does not take the opportunity to demonstrate his command of the issues and talk in specifics about his plan for the country in a forum that lends itself to individual unfiltered critical reading.
I think that the forum he is most interested in is seeing himself on the monitor.
the debt as it becomes due?"
Well, we pay off T Bills as they come due. If we aren't running surpluses, allowing us to have cash on hand to pay them off, we have no choice but to simply re-issue the debt to another (or possibly the same - my 90 Day T Bills are automatically re-purchased) person.
"I am taking "surplus" to mean the surplus above all obligations, including the cost of paying off, and retiring, debt as it becomes due, without the need to issue further debt to replace the old debt."
That isn't how any accountant does it. If you do it your way, we are then running a huge deficit, as (I would aproximate) several trillion dollars in T Bills come due every year, and are simply re-issued.
"You are saying it means only the surplus above interest payments on debt."
"...so that, without devoting the "surplus" futher to retiring the debt, the debt continues indefinitely."
Exactly.
"Drudge has confirmed that Gore in fact had an erection?
I don't know how he did it, but that is one dedicated investigative reporter."
Ohio,
For most fully-developed adult males, an erection is plainly visible through pants of just about any thickness.
I understand that your, errr, stunted growth in this area leads you to believe, wrongly, that "confirming" an erection takes some up-close inspection.
But for most of the male population, the confirmation can be made at a distance of ten or fifteen feet.
Rask,
Well, I will take your word for it that you are right.
Sorry about that "stick it up your ass" business.
OK, I am finally seeing why we were disagreeing, and I apologize for being rude. I mistook honest accounting naivete for pigheadedness.
It doesn't work this way. The cost of paying off each T Bill is not considered an "expense". You won't see it listed as a government budget item. Only *interest* is considered an expense. You would have to ask an accountant to clearly explain *why* it is done this way, but assets and liabilities are always tracked separately from expenses and revenues.
"You are telling me the surplus only exceeds the cost of interest payments on debt, only the cost of *maintaining* the debt, only the cost of paying interest on old bills to be replaced by new debt as the old debt is retired."
Exactly.
Because he said, "assume you are in the middle of the middle class..."
When Gore talks like this, what he really means is "assume you are in the middle of the bottom 20% of earners in the country."
Those people will not, in fact, get much of a tax break under Bush, because they're barely paying federal taxes as it is.
Gore does this a lot. During his convention speech, he said that Bush's tax cuts would give "middle class" taxpayers 62 cents per week.
He really meant "per day," and 62 cents per day is what someone making $20,000 a year would get in a tax cut.
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.New.Science.of.C.html
The first paragraph
The past ten days will go down as a turning point in American history. This is what it's like when the far right is taking over your country: the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character. A story in today's (10/15/00) New York Times states openly what has been clear all along, that this campaign of character assassination has been planned and executed over a long period by the Republicans.
The last paragraph:
It is not surprising that Rupert Murdoch's media properties, such as Fox and the New York Post, publish smears against people who disagree with Murdoch's far-right views. But it can hardly be an accident that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press have all assigned reporters to the Gore campaign who write, day in and day out, the same sorts of exaggerated smears. To be sure, the press is not unanimous in spreading Republican lies as truth; the contrast between the NYT/Post/AP axis and the calm reporting of the Los Angeles Times could hardly be greater. But the Post, Times, and AP, all well-connected and widely syndicated, set the tone for the press as a whole. The fix is clearly in, and these establishment media operations are clearly down with it. They see which way the wind is blowing, and they don't want to get left behind. A kind of coup is in effect, continuing the pattern of the Whitewater hoax and impeachment. If the far right succeeds in its campaign, then the incoming government will be staffed by people who are trained in the new science of character assassination. It's all they know. And having destroyed Al Gore, they will come after the rest of us.
The Amazin' Airbrushed package:
That's where a very sizable fraction of American households are, financially, and the Lefties keep coming up with the cheap shots about 'cutting' their taxes more than those who actually do contribute Federal Revenue at the end of the day.
What a load of Socialist malarkey.
The New York Times discerns four landmarks in this campaign, and landmark number one is as follows:
... in December 1997 ... the [Republican National] committee announced
it had started a contest to come up with a slogan for Mr. Gore after he told reporters that the hero and heroine in the novel "Love Story" were modeled after him and his wife, Tipper. (Erich Segal, the author, soon said that his protagonist, Oliver Barrett IV, was only partly based on Mr. Gore, while Jenny Cavilleri had nothing to do with
Tipper Gore.)
In this case, the RNC's claim was false. Gore had not told anyone that Love Story was based on him and his wife. Rather, he had mentioned a newspaper article that had inaccurately said that, and was carefully to say that he only had the article's word to go on. Observe that Mitchell repeats the RNC's false account, and then (following the longstanding convention) makes it sound as though Segal was contradicting Gore, when in fact he was defending him. The false "Love Story" store continues to be repeated to the present day.
The fact that the Fed has been raising interest rates to combat an overheating economy in no way means they won't raise them again, especially if faced with strong fiscal stimulus against a backdrop of an economy already running flat out. The Fed does not wait for inflation to accelerate and then react as it knows that it takes from 12-18 months for monetary policy actions taken today to have an impact on the real economy. They act preemptively to keep the economy on an even keel, anticipating as best as possible future aggregate demand.
I do not cite the Citizens for Tax Justice as having anything to do with their name or justice -- rather that I have reason to respect their analysis. Regardless that post wasn't meant for you. 
Now?
There is, undeniably, something not quite right with that package.
It's odd. You'd think they'd be able to airbrush indetectably.
I have no criticism of the EITC (which a certain pathological liar & crook who shall momentarily remain nameless falsely claimed credit for).
I'm simply pointing out the dishonesty of Leftist politicians when talking about feeding their taxation and revenue addition.
On another note, is this statement true?
"isten, for 24 years, I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discovered great new cures, and that's great. We want--we want them to continue that.
But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion--you see all these ads--than they are on research and development."
He claimed credit for *increasing* the EITC, and he did sponsor a successful bill to that effect.
It is wrong to call an expansion of the EITC a "tax cut," as Gore does.
It is wrong to call a government subsidation of retirement savings a "tax cut," as Gore does.
And it is wrong to say that you will give taxpayers a $10,000 tax *credit* for each child's college tuition, when in fact
1) The program already exists;
2) You are proposing a $10,000 tax DEDUCTION, not credit (works out to be, for the average family, worth around $800); and
3) that covers an entire FAMILY, and is not "per child."
But Gore calls it "per family" in his budget to keep the numbers down, and yet reassures every single citizen that asks him that it is "per child." It is not.
He's got his lunch in there.
We know all about how Pinocchio Bore 'took on' Occidental Petroleum, the Bore family Sugar Daddy.
Can you say 'Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserve'?
Or an embrace of Clintonism, for Ms. Jones swore that it was askew.
Good eyes. It obviously is not a penis, because penises don't extend from the coccyx up to the bellybutton.
Unless -- are we to assume -- that his unit is so large it must be folded over itself to fit inside his pants?
Regarding my alleged "stunted growth", I would like to state for the record that I dispute that assertion. (I will also point out that I drive a modest, inexpensive car, and have never owned a gun. Ladies, I think you know what THAT means.)
In rereading that post, I should have said Bush's fiscal plan, because it is not just his tax cut but his total plan including spending increases and not accounting for soc sec transition costs that represent the full scope of fiscal irresponsibility.
Errrrrrr... no. You can get a "puff up" of your crotch-fabric when you sit down, resulting in the illusion of a tent-pole.
But standing? How can your pants "fold" to create the illusion of a tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass?
And... are you claiming that this odd "fold" appeared in the dozens of shots that were taken of Gore for the cover shot?
Nope.
a) a huge, folded cock
b) an alien protuberance
c) a bologna sandwich
d) a paperback of Earth in the Balance
e) a awkwardly placed colostomy bag
Gore Media Coverage: Playing Hardball
http://www.cjr.org/year/00/3/hall.asp
Some quotes:
Comparing the sourcing on stories, the Pew researchers found something that also was evident in my own research: "Journalists' assertions about Bush's character were more than twice as likely than Gore's to be unsupported by any evidence. In other words, they were pure opinion, rather than journalistic analysis."
And...
The substance of what Gore has been saying in speeches around the country often has been wrapped in reporters' cynical language that effectively casts doubt about his motives before he even opens his mouth.The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, for example, need not have characterized Gore's statement to a group of healthcare workers --"It is in fact intolerable in the midst of unprecedented prosperity that we have so many Americans who do not have health insurance" -- as "moaning." And, rather than mocking Gore for wearing a Palm Pilot and characterizing him as a Bill Bradley imitator, she could have led with the substance of what Gore said that day. That's the way numerous publications have treated George W. Bush's proposals on education, crime, and other topics. They play it straight, paraphrasing and quoting his remarks. They don't raise flags about his motives right off the bat.
That "liberal" media... they sure are busy, aren't they???
Raskolnikov -
Wrong. Bore clearly referred to the original EITC when he said:
: I was the author of that proposal [the Earned Income Tax Credit]. I wrote that, so I say [to Bill Bradley], Welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time.
He didn't author it. As a matter of fact he nver authored *anything* related to the EITC at any time. Plus, he didn't enter Congress until two years after it was enacted.
So, with Bush, they were just musing and with Gore, they had evidence?
tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass?"
Well, you might be right there. Not having a full-length mirror in my office, I can't do any tests right now.
(And the phrase "tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass" deserves to be in a romance novel!)
On the other hand, I have no expectations of you. I'm just reading the sentence.
"spending increases and not accounting for soc sec transition costs that represent the full scope of fiscal irresponsibility."
Silliness.
If the entirety of both the SS surplus AND general revenues were devoted to a SS "lockbox," Social Security would *still* go bankrupt.
Saving Social Security requires structural reform, and there is simply no way around that fact. It is ridiculous to say that Bush's taking money from the SS Trust Fund for SS accounts will "bankrupt" Social Security, because SS will go bankrupt even if he doesn't, and SS will go bankrupt even if Al Gore has his precious "lockbox," and even if ALL surplus is devoted to Social Security.
Gore just hasn't the guts to implement the necessary reforms. If he had such guts, he and clinton would have proposed reforms, as they promised in 1992, but never got around to, strangely.
Bush's plan will probably work like this: Young people can, if they want, opt into the plan to devote a fraction of their SS tax into a private account, but only if they accept certain reductions in the generosity of the main SS benefit, including higher retirement ages.
Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it.
Of course, as everybody knows, Bore and Russell Feingold never served together in the Senate.
Phydeau:
That's a really good article. There's also a really kickin' site called The Daily Howler. Have you heard of it?
It's the *tits*, baby!
Nostalgia for 1998 is a powerful force.
Thoughtful: I did not say "calendar year," I said "throughout the past year." You are wrong if you think it is based merely on the figures released yesterday.
The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining the COLA. In general, the COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next.
You are semantically wrong that it is a measure of inflation: it is a reaction to a measurement of inflation.
This is so silly I can't believe you are arguing it (that Alan Greenspan looks at annual SS COLA adjustments, rather than the most recent CPIs, in deciding whether inflation needs reining in).
Your quote does not "clearly" refer to the original enacting of the EITC. It refers to "that proposal". Regarding whether he authored an expansion, I have read differently in other newspapers.
Live a little.
"So, focusing on Gore's penis rather than his policies; you Republicans see this as a winning strategy?"
It's working so far, isn't it?
Shit, we got the last asshole impeached, held in contempt, & ready to be disbarred.
Who knows how far we can go with the Cock-Strategy?
Sky's the limit! Sheeeeeezy-it, boyzzz!
Saturday Nite Live will truly be Must See TV this week.
Hey--
Is that the "lockbox" in Gore's pants?
WOMAN: Is that a flashlight in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
GORE: Actually, it's my turgid cock.
WOMAN: Oh. I was sort of just joking.
GORE: I will fight for you.
WOMAN: Please go somewhere not near here.
You are right. To be precise Thoughtful should have said "Bush's proposal will bankrupt Social Security much sooner than Gore's proposal to leave it alone."
While I wish Gore wasn't publicly playing ostrich on this issue, I have hopes that his supplemental retirement fund plan will be successful enough to serve as a starting point for real social security reform several years from now. I suspect that there will be a massive backlash against Bush's plan when he finally presents a real plan, and it isn't cost-free.
He claimed credit for *increasing* the EITC
I don't think so. I think you bought into the spin. But I'll check.
Jack: I have heard that stat bandied around a lot. I don't know if it is true, but if false it wouldn't be a lie, rather an uncritical parroting of a common factoid.
Doesn't Gore have a staff to check such things?
Has he issued an apology?
Again, it depends if in fact, it is a folded cock, or a bag of pistachios.
Possible. But if so it was from a reporter who swallowed it and regurgitated it.
Just got here, huh?
But jones, who the hell airbrushes a boner in?
There is something there, be it penis, a breathing pod, or pistachios.
Because if this is the work of evil airbrush men, I might actually listen more to phydeau's media conspiracy. It makes him even more odd than he presently appears.
You're killing me. "Fudgicle in his pants." "Bag of pistachios."
I wish.
"Has he issued an apology?"
I don't even know that he has to. Considering that his apology during the 2nd debate was reamed by the press, and Bush hasn't apologized for his errors (and keeps repeating them), I can't see Gore rushing to apologize.
Al Gore
Politically to the Left. Dresses to the Right.
Help us on this claim:
"Listen, for 24 years, I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discovered great new cures, and that's great. We want--we want them to continue that.
But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion--you see all these ads--than they are on research and development."
Is this true?
Which errors are these?
In fact, Gore himself reportedly played a major role in a decision that deprived some 150,000 Texas children of the chance for health coverage. In 1995, Gov. bush sought permission from the Clinton-Gore administration to allow private contractors to administer some aspects of Texas' Health and Human Services programs and generate savings that would be used directly to provide health insurance for uninsured children. According to Kenneth Weinstein, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, the Bush plan would have saved more than $10 million a month, enough to pay for health coverage for 150,000 children. Writing in the Weekly Standard recently Weinstewin reports that Al Gore, bowing to pressure from the AFL-CIO, helped kill the Texas plan in 1997. the unions were worried that Bush's plan would cost public sector jobs, not just in texas, but elsewhere if it succeeded and other states followed suit. They threatened to withhold support for Gore's impending presidential run. Gore sided with the unions instead of the kids, and persuaded Bill Clinton to nix the Bush plan.
Actually Jack, based on that photo, if Gore's shlong becomes a public issue, I fear Bush is DOA.
I agree. And I can't believe Ace was naive enough to get sucked into the plan.
It's their October Surprise.
Al Gore apparently had a raging bone during a photo shoot for Jann Wenner and we're futzing about policy.
All in the week The Ladies Man opened.
Cocktober Surprise?
Al Gore's smuggling french bread or something, man.
I have caught you in an error. It is Tipper's lunch.
His budget errors. The "1/4 goes to this" shtick. Krugman has well documented these.
That is *not* an image I needed in my head so soon after lunchtime.
Gore: "Have you seen my hog?"
Brokaw: "Excuse me?"
Gore: "I said, 'Have you seen my cock' because your voice is the flute of the snake charmer and my cobra is getting ready to strike."
(get ups)
Brokaw: "Mr. Vice President, what . . . what are you . . . Oh my God!"
(Gore smacks Brokaw about the head and neck with his schlong)
Gore: "How you like my veracity now, bitch? Am I connecting now, you lisping freak."
(turns to the camera as Frank T.J. Mackey)
Gore: "RESPECT THE COCK!"
Gore 2000: Bigger *is* Better!
Gore 2000: Ready for Bush!
Gore 2000: A Hard on for America!
You said "errorS." This is a single "error," and quite debatable.
He has several budget errors, and they are errors based on his own numbers.
NERVOUS TEEN: Boxers or briefs?
AL GORE: I'm sorry?
TEEN: You know... boxers or briefs?
GORE: Ha. A ha ha ha. Neither, actually. I wear a lead-lined codpiece to protect my vitals against dangerous ultraviolet rays due to ozone depletion.
AUDIENCE: (nervous tittering)
Maybe the bulge in Al Gore's pants conceals a tiny Secret Service Agent.
Beats me.
Now, back to the candidate with the wooden . . .
. . . personality.
Al Gore
It's Morning in my Pants.
You aint seen nothin' yet!
Al Gore
Vote for him or he will frighten your children with his tumescent genitals.
Al Gore
I will fight the contraints of my trousers.
GORE: Jim?
LEHRER: Yes, sir.
GORE: We have a direct disagreement on this.
LEHRER: Just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to--you know, the way the rules go here, now, two minutes, two minutes, and then I'll decide whether we go on.
GORE: You looking to get a beating from my cock?.
LEHRER: So what I want to make sure is we understand here is, before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national patients' bill of rights?
GORE: What I understand is that you're asking to ride the snake? Do I have that right, Jimmy? When I refer to the Dingell-Norwood bill, I'm talking about my huge schlummer. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress, and much like my cock, it attracts bothe Republican bitches and Democratic bitches. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that Republican majority has put forward.
Less than three weeks into the election, and a cover shot of Gore with a silo emerges.
The women my have dug the tongue-kiss with Tipper. But, apart from Jenna Jameson, will they flock to the cock? Will the pole get them to the polls? Are they looking to get their ballot-box stuffed?
GORE: But do you support my bloated blood-sausage?
BUSH: I, I, I don't have a position on that...
GORE: I think you're afraid to take a stand on my tumescent hairy beefsicle.
BUSH: Jim, can we...
LEHRER: Let's move on.
GORE: I think that speaks for itself. He's frightened by my pulsating trouser-carp.
BUSH: No, it's just that we have rules, but apparently rules don't mean anything.
GORE: Rules, schmules. I'm puffing like the Graf Zeppelin. Where's Tipper when I need her? Or Paul Begala?
And I really am afraid that this will actually sway some dopey women to vote for Gore.
Khakis, a lisp, erections on the cover of a national magazine...
Is Al Gore trying to *tell* us something?
Man.
This is good fun.
I heard he has given up on the male vote and will be concentrating on the women vote.
During the photo shoot, he should have been concentrating on naked nuns or some such thing.
Al Gore
Vote for me or I will beat you to death with my bloated dorkmeat.
Gore's been giving her his Information Superhighway.
She took a ride on Air Force Nine, if you know what I'm saying.
Al Gore
During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the inappropriate public erection.
No controlling trouser authority.
Tipper and I have four children. And God bless them, everyone of them decided on their own to come here this evening. I don't want to embarrass our oldest daughter, she and her husband made us grandparents almost a year and a half ago. And yet, if she'll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it. And Tipper hit the ceiling. Well, she was riding my gargantuan pork master, but that's neither here nor there. And that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that--warning labels for parents. And I'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there.
Expressing his lingering frustration with the investigation of his affair with a White House intern that nearly brought down his presidency, Clinton likens the vigilance of his opponents with those who have persecuted gays, blacks and other minorities.
“The people who’ve been targeted, who’ve been publicly humiliated and abused, I think identified with what was going on,” he said.
The headline for this on ABC's table of contents is "Clinton says gays feel his pain."
I don't know about gays, but I've about felt all of this guy's pain I can handle.
If I were gay, I think I'd rather feel Al's "pain."
I dunno. Looks like another one of Al Gore's "embellishments," if you know what I'm saying.
Gawd you guys are hilarious today!! 100 posts and no end in sight!
But! Re Message # 199: with all that effort to airbrush his "thing", you'd think they would have done something about his face! I mean, what's with the squinty eyes and the weird smile?
Blood flow issues.
"I mean, what's with the squinty eyes and the weird smile?"
Dizziness due to blood-flow to outsized porkmonster.
Hm.
Yours was funnier.
Hey, is that Robert Reich in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
"Go ahead. You can touch it."
Al Gore
Our real first black President.
I mean in the debate he could have just flopped it out and said to Bush, "You want a real dick-measuring contest? Let's go, paco!"
I knew John Holmes. I worked with John Holmes. And believe me, Senator, you are no John Holmes.
Time to retire the nickname "Little" Al.
Eric Segal
Al Gore
Here's the beef, bitch.
Jack,
Can you imagine what Foont is doing with this at Table Talk?
315 very good. I don't even know what a "fungo" bat is.
Though I've been trying work "bat" into one of these. Thought about "pork-bat," but the cadence didn't seem right.
That reminds me, a gift for you:
Ferguson Foont - 11:51 am PST - Apr 26, 2000 - #2093 of 2099
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"
. . . Things will shift markedly toward Gore prior to election day, though, and Bush's wins on November 2 will be scarce as hens' teeth.
The REAL tossup states when we get to the end of the campaign will be Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, and if all goes well for Gore Virginia. Yes, Texas. By the time this election nears its climax, every time a Texan coughs he's going to blame George W. Bush for it.
By November 2 there will, in my opinion, be no states firmly in the Bush column with the possible exceptions of Arizona and Oklahoma -- NOT Texas. Texas, Virginia, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Nebraska, plus MAYBE Wyoming, may be shown as LEANING Bush, but trends will be all Goreward even during the period between the final tracking poll and the only poll that counts.
The election is, of course, on November 7. Not November 2, a