nbfmdj nxosgc ecnazh stuczhrq plfewug cezm apehmvw http://www.fmurakezn.nhira.com

xipayu ojwmnku fvorhby ybtoximv tknb pvjmqf vjlo

As Joe Stalin used to say, "It doesn't matter who votes, it's who counts the votes." Same is true for polls. For example, the poll interpreters are fond to report President Bush's support at 32 percent or thereabouts. They fail to report that 73 percent of Republicans support Bush (Pew Research). The pundits say Bush's support is low. But at 73 percent Republican approval, he far outdistances Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama who can muster only 38 percent and 25 percent support among Democrats (RLP Polling data). Further, these same professional writers generally do not dwelve into why 62 percent of Democrats do not support Mrs. Clinton and 75 percent do not support Mr. Obama. To paraphrase "Uncle Joe" (as FDR called him), doesn't matter who is polled, what matters is who interprets the polls.

Trotsky cherry-picks his polling data, just like his neocon heroes do their "intelligence."
When you combine those who say things are going "well or very well" in Iraq you get a total of 32 percent.
Those smart enough to recognize that it is going "badly or very badly" add up to 66 percent.

Iraq is already in civil war and Al-Queda was not in Iraq until our illegal, immoral invasion!@

Iraq is already in civil war and Al-Queda was not in Iraq until our illegal, immoral invasion!@

JimD in FL,
I wrote that because i believe that it is a fact of life (no pun intended, really). It's not that i take healthcare lightly or don't think that we should try to improve the healthcare system (or that i try to be morally repugnant to anyone). The point is that all care in all systems in all countries is rationed in some way, shape or form. Because of that, there will be people that cannot get the care they need for numerous reasons, some of which will die. I'm not saying that is a good thing - i am just saying it is unrealistic to expect that to never occur. The question is who or what entities do you want determining the rationing. Like you, i don't really have any good answers. But when you make the government the entity that determines the definition of "decent" (nationalize medicine), it invariably becomes subject to political pressures, special interests, election cycles, etc. While i am not sold on our current system (although as i posted before it has worked out well for me so far), I don't believe nationalizing it improves it.

Dave writes "There will ALWAYS be people that die because they cannot afford or don't have access to the needed type of health care for their condition." I consider that morally repugnant and I am not a bleeding hear liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not think everyone should have equal health care. I just think everyone should have access to decent health care. There is health care rationing today in the US. Health care is rationed based on income and insurance coverage. Insurance companies ration health care based on how much they are willing to pay.

Chris, if I'm reading you right -- does this mean conservatives support it more?

29% of Americans support immediate withdrawl. If that includes 28% of liberals and 27% of moderates, then... that must mean that more conservatives support it (i.e., to get to an average of 29%).

Or, if that 29% is just Dems and Dem leaners only, then that raises another question -- how does 27% and 28% equate to a weighted average of 29%?

Anyone got the full breakdown? I'm sure there's a simple answer here, just curious.

Good points, Dave. Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

Who gets to decide what constitutes quality care?

Should health care be equal?

JimD in FL,
"I think access to decent health care should not be dependent on income." I understand your arguement. The problem you get into is really the "what is your definition of decent"? There will ALWAYS be people that die because they cannot afford or don't have access to the needed type of health care for their condition. No matter what system is or isn't implemented, it will not provide everyone with the state of the art (read most expensive option) health care. There will be rationing because we cannot afford to cover it all. Since there will be rationing, there will always be someone that loses out on a medical procedure or treatment.

I have had a number of different types of healthcare in my life. The one thing that i have found is that you and your doctors need to work the system, whatever kind that is. About a decade ago, i was on an HMO and found out i needed heart surgery. I made sure i followed all the rules and filled out all the forms. My PCP made sure I got the correct surgeon. I was in the hospital for one week. It worked out well for me and cost me almost nothing (less than $300 if i recall correctly). Later, i was on a plan that did not cover routine physicals. So once a year i would visit with a shopping list of issues i had and my doctor would wind up giving me a physical in order to solve those issues. Today, i have insurance but the doctor i see does not take insurance at all and its a pay out of pocket per visit. I am happy and able to do that. It has opened my eyes to how expensive healthcare is though. That kind of escapes you when you pay a $10 copay for each visit. I am much more likely to go only when i absolutly need it and for my once a year checkup. It has been my experience that good doctors will be able to get you the care you need. I realize that I may not be typical but i have had very few issues in the 17 years i have been working and on insurance. But the fact remains that health costs. The other truism is that there is no free lunch.

Ha ha ha, Mark I'm laughing. I thank you for ushering in the Clintons with your vote.

I thinkt the DC pilot idea is hilarious.

I don't regularly read "The Economist", but it has had some interesting articles about malpractice suits driving up costs.

I'm sorry we didn't follow up on your other topic(s).

Well, few of you thought that finding a bipartisan foreign policy with wiggle room was worth the compromises. And nobody really wanted to follow up on whether and how we could create a much larger military, like we had for the first 49 years of my life.

So my not-too-obnoxious weigh-in on health care follows.

The Japanese innoculate all school kids against communicable disease and claim it lowers overall health care costs significantly because little people otherwise spread sickness in the general population. I would like to see every state do this in cooperation with the CDC.

That is the sum of my not-to-obnoxious suggestion[s].

"The Economist" claims that it sees Edwards' and Obama's plans as practical for their integration of the insurance industry - I remain dubious.

Perot used to say that the businesslike approach to testing new ideas was not to
pass a multibillion dollar social experiment, but to pass a multimillion dollar pilot project to see if it worked and if it could be justified on some cost-benefit basis. He also suggested that any new Fed social program that Congress wanted to try should be imposed as a test pilot on Washington DC, because it is a Federal enclave. When the programs fail in DC, we would not have wasted even 1% as much on them. And, if by chance, a program worked in DC, it could be reasonably argued that it should be expanded.

Citing BigEars as authority is obnoxious, but I could not resist. I voted for him.

I like this site very much and would like to thank its owner. 631906172 http://wiki.slimdevices.com/plugin/attachments/HomePage/shrek-3.html

I am in total agreement. 1227426803

Actually, No Facts; you stayed true to your name, simply stating the surge is working and then directing me to a website to look up the facts myself. American thinker was the one you suggested
So I did just that. The first thing that strikes me about this reference you've chosen is that it its' editor and publisher is a business consultant, specializing in US-Japanese management issues.

http://theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/Lifson/LifsonHome.html
Thomas Lifson is a management consultant in Berkeley, California, specializing in US-Japanese management issues.

You don't suppose he has his own axes to grind, do you?
I tried to read a couple of the articles on the site, but found them to be extremely pedantic, almost childish, primarily because the authors seem to think that every problem we've ever faced as a nation has been caused by liberals and liberalism.
Of course, no reasoned person could possibly believe this, no more than they could believe the obverse argument, that every problem is the work of simple minded conservatives, so I think it's probably just a lampoon site, something along the lines of "The Colbert Report" but without the humor the television show attempts.
I wouldn't take it all too seriously, No Facts, the majority of our problems are caused by corruption and incompetence, which explains why our problems have multiplied with such gusto under the present administrations.
By the way, I've considered the problem you outlined in your post...
>>you monkeys aren't worth my time.<<
Easily solved, get up from your chair and go do something productive, perhaps removing the wheels from your house might be a good start. Then we wont be waisting your time. No need to thank me, I'm a liberal, we like to help people.

Welcome: Thanks for the welcome.

bsimon -- you may have already signed off for the night.

As it stands, it's debatable as to whether or not the wealth redistribution is happening as you described it.

However, even if it is, You have yet to prove that it is the result of a government policy.

So, for your original line of questioning, no, the government should not be responsible for the redistribution of wealth.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

"Listen you ungrateful losers, the poor people in Mali are much worse off than you, so shut up and be thankful you don't live over there."

I thank God almost every day that I'm an American.

I suspect a lot of other folks pray that they can some day be an American.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

No-Name poster might be right, which is unfortunate.

Listen you ungrateful losers, the poor people in Mali are much worse off than you, so shut up and be thankful you don't live over there.

Mike: "Perhaps someone else can weigh in (preferably in a non-obnoxious way)?"

Hilarious, Mike, real slapnuts stuff. Keep up the good work!

Wakeup call to Conservatives - every time you feel good about a company getting out from under a health care plan or pension plan it agreed to fund in the past, just remember that eventually the retirement benefits and health care costs are going to be covered by the government.

What you're watching is a drip-drip-drip unintended move towards universal healthcare, unless business gets back in the game, which is not likely to happen.

You would be best advised to come up with practical alternatives now, rather than rant against it, becuase it is the most likely outcome the way things are going.

koward Kos klone - can't you see that this is an adult discussion and has no need for your adolescent interjections. go back to Kos where that stuff plays well.

thanks gang for a healthy interaction. without rufas and Kos koward, this blog has some life left in it yet. superb.

TTFN

Perhaps someone else can weigh in (preferably in a non-obnoxious way)?

Mike: "Why are so many libs so adamantly opposed to comparing our "poor" to other nation's poor?"

Because it's irrelevant, mmmkay?

"Maybe we have conflicting data?"

It would seem to be the case. My understanding is that in the US it is now harder to change the class into which you were born than in much of Europe. In other words, in places like France, England and Denmark, its easier to work your way out of poverty, statistically, than in the US.

"For the group of people you've described, their pay has more than outpaced inflation. This much I have read."

It depends on the time period. The middle class did great for many decades. It is only relatively recently that the economy has shifted. I want to say the last decade or so, but don't have the figures handy.

bsimon -- I thought it was a good line both times you used it on me today :)

JimD -- I'm sorry, I just read your response. I really liked that same paragraph that bsimon posted.

I watched the D debate, and couldn't help but agree with J. Edward's rant that it's unacceptable that in this country, people don't have healthcare.

But I don't think any of those guys/gals had the right solution. Unfortunately, I don't have one of my own at this point.

Mike asks
"Why are so many libs so adamantly opposed to comparing our "poor" to other nation's poor?"

I can't speak for the 'libs' but when we are talking about US policy & transfer of wealth, what do the rest of the world's poor have to do with anything?

I suppose the argument can be made that US policy is exacerbating the plight of the poor in Mexico, which is why they slip over our undefended borders to work here for $5.75 per hour, or whatever the Min just went up to. This pittance of a wage actually makes them rich, which transfers US wealth to Mexico, when they send it home to keep the rellies from starving to death.

bsimon -- I am a middle class man who aspires to move up in this world, of that you and I agree.

I'm still having a hard time understanding where you're coming from.

For the group of people you've described, their pay has more than outpaced inflation. This much I have read.

And their stay in the 4th and 3rd quintile, while longer than their stay in the 5th, is reasonably short (as in, the average person can move up well within his lifetime).

Maybe we have conflicting data?

"How many times can I re-word the same old joke about the adult reading seminars?"

I see. The right wing nuts and liberal loons can repeat their tired old jokes, but when I find a good one and use it a couple times, I get called on it. Well, thanks for admitting it was a good line, the first time anyway.

Mike writes
"I've seen evidence (which I unfortunately can't cite right now -- which makes both of our numbers equally believable) that says that the average stay in the bottom 5th is 18 months.

After 18 months, your average Joe Blow is already earning enough to move up to the next Quintile."


I don't dispute that such evidence exists. But, again, I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about that 70% of the population between the bottom quintile and the top 10% - the middle class, of which you are likely a member - I certainly am.

How many times can I re-word the same old joke about the adult reading seminars?

Trotsky makes a great point.

I stayed with a family without a car, air conditioning, cable, hot water, and a lot of other things without which many of our "poor" couldn't live without.

And Mexico isn't even a 3rd world country.

Why are so many libs so adamantly opposed to comparing our "poor" to other nation's poor?

Trotsky writes
"and your solution is to simply steal it from more productive individuals. and that IS right?"

Uh, where did I say that?

Oh, that's right, I didn't say that.

Add Trotsky to the list of posters here with deficient reading comprehension skills. You're welcome to the offer as well - I'm happy to find for you adult oriented reading comprehension classes.

JimD in FL writes
"I often agree with liberals on the identification of social problems but I often agree with the conservative critique of the proposed liberal solution. I definitely believe the large number of uninsured and under-insured in this country is scandalous."

Well put.

Right now there are a huge number if people in our country who work hard just to stay even, and that's not right.

and your solution is to simply steal it from more productive individuals. and that IS right? Where did you get the idea that equal outcomes are guaranteed in this country? someones desires are not a motivation for policy.

the idea that they are losing ground is also suspect. the goods we buy are cheaper (thanks to walmart and globilization). the "poor" in this country have tv's, cable, air conditioning, cars, food, heat, etc. do you think the poor in the rest of the world would like to be "poor" here.

Trotsky,

I think access to decent health care should not be dependent on income. I do not see it as the same as auto insurance or buying a house. People's health should not depend on how much insurance they can afford. Ultimately, some people die because they do not have decent coverage. I understand the libertarian argument you make - and on other issues I would often agree. However, I see the libertarian argument on health insurance as morally indefensible.

bsimon -- It sounds like we both want the same thing - that anyone who works hard can move up.

I've seen evidence (which I unfortunately can't cite right now -- which makes both of our numbers equally believable) that says that the average stay in the bottom 5th is 18 months.

After 18 months, your average Joe Blow is already earning enough to move up to the next Quintile.

And I don't think a "So What" response to my observation about Mexico is appropriate.

Of course the libs don't want to compare our nations poor to other nation's poor - that would expose their fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

As was said previously, it is not as important that the gap widens, so long as the floor rises for everyone.

Do I think CEO's are overpaid? Yes. Do I think government should step in? No(t yet).

Mike,

I suspect that some some sort of subsidy would be necessary along with structural reforms. I don't know if the employer system is sustainable in terms of our competitiveness. However, moving from an employer system to an individual purchase system would entail a lot of problems. Perhaps, tax credits for employers would get around this.

Maybe setting up large groups that people in small as well as large companies can buy into would work. The larger the group, the easier it is to spread costs. Basically, insurance involves around the many paying for the few. People who use a lot of health care generally receive more in benefits than they pay in premiums. The healthier pay more in premiums than they receive in benefits.

Another disconnect is that as medical treatment has evolved, far more conditions are treated with drugs than was the case 30 years ago. Lots of medical insurance covers little or nothing for prescription drugs.

As I said in my original post - I do not have any good answers. I often agree with liberals on the identification of social problems but I often agree with the conservative critique of the proposed liberal solution. I definitely believe the large number of uninsured and under-insured in this country is scandalous.

"Insurance is unaffordable for many individuals without employment coverage. My parents were paying over $1,200 per month in the early 90's before they qualified for Medicare.

My step-son recently married and it will cost over $500 per month to add his 25 year old wife to his employer provided insurance coverage. That is an awful lot for a young couple."

Woe is me, I don't like the cost of things. I want the government to arrange for somneone else to pay this. Is that what you are saying? If health insurance were like auto insurance you could find your own according to your budget. but it is not like auto insurance. it is tied to your employer who can choose whatever product they like. Is getting that job worth that insurance? why is this a question we need to ask.

also, who does health insurance pay for everything that goes wrong with you? does your auto policy cover tires, brakes, oil changes, etc? how much would it cost if it did?

Also if you never had to ask how much anything costs, what would you agree to have done? compare this to deciding whether you will fix that dent or leave it?

MIke writes
" as someone who has studied economics, I can tell you it's anything but a zero sum game. So you're argument is inherently worthless."

As worthless as your spelling? Whoops! Sorry, picking on spelling and grammar is a cowards way out. I've studied economics too. There is a fair argument to be made that economics is not a zero sum game. However, that ignores the crux of the issue. Independant of the rate of growth of the pie as a whole (i.e. the pie can grow because its not a zero sum game), there is purchasing power. So, to get back to the 90% who've lost wealth, we have to look at inflation. Most of those 90% have seen an increase in income over the time period studied. However, once you factor in inflation, these people have lost purchasing power - if I get year after year of 3% raises, but inflation exceeds 3%, I'm losing ground. That's where the bottom 90% are losing ground, the middle 9% are holding steady & the top 1% are growing their share.

Then Mike says
"And you want to make the slices more and more even."

I didn't say that. I asked whether government policy should be changed if it promotes redistribution of wealth.

I would prefer a system in which everyone who works hard can improve themselves, economically and otherwise. Right now there are a huge number if people in our country who work hard just to stay even, and that's not right.

Mike lastly says
"I just went to Mexico last weekend. (SOME OF) Our nation's "poor" don't even know what poverty is."

So what? If we have to compare how our poor are doing to people who live in tin shacks without running water or electricity, we're doing worse than I thought. Note that I'm not just talking about the people in poverty, I'm talking about that huge middle class that goes to work everyday and busts their butt to pay for the car and the mortgage and cable TV. They are losing ground.

Mike,

The rules of engagement are designed to protect the civilian population. The rules of engagement were provided by the administration, hardly friends of the ACLU and liberals. The troops do not know who is innocent and who isn't until something happens. There certainly appears to be at least one case where troops have killed bystanders in retaliation for an attack by someone else. Are you arguing that we should just wipe out Iraqi civilians on suspicion? As you said, "human life is human life". We are told that we are doing this for the good of the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi situation is hell and some very few of our troops cannot handle it. These are the few bad apples that kill innocent civilians and abuse prisoners. This always happens in war. However, declaring open season on civilians is not the answer. How are we ever going to achieve anything approaching stability in Iraq if we direct our troops to terrorize the civilian population?

JimD -- I am interested to hear what you think would be the best solution? You have definitely laid out a lot of problems with the current system.

real fix

If I were designing a social security system from the ground up, I would definitely design it around market investments. However, Bush's proposal ignores the fact that current social security taxes finance current benefits. Social security is facing a serious solvency problem. Diverting any portion of current social security taxes from paying current benefits only exacerbates the problem.

MikeB: I understand your points, trust me I do.

Your description is probably accurate, and you've basically described hell.

It's very bad over there. And everyone knows it.

I guess I'm just not convinced that it can't be fixed, as you are.

Two things you wrote struck me:

1.) "They WILL kill each other if we aren't there, actively preventing it."

2.) "Our troops don't trust anyone. Any and every civilian and soldier will kill you in a heartbeat."

Response:

1. That is precisely why we can't leave. Human life is human life.

2. As this is most definitely true, I don't understand why the libs and the ACLU make us fight with our hands behind our back. Our rules of engagement are a joke. We prosecute Marines who are doing their job. This is a major factor to why things aren't getting better, faster.

The numbers charade over health insurance ignores a number of factors. Many of those with some coverage are under-insured. Businesses are cutting back on insurance coverage and passing more costs to employees.

The competitiveness of some of our major industries is being undercut by health insurance costs - the largest single cost element in a GM car is health care coverage for employees and retirees.

Many people who have insurance do not have very good coverage. Many HMOs in particular have a bureaucracy and ration treatment as bad or worse than the "socialist" systems the right loves to bash. Moore's documentary was accurate in its portrayal of some of the Catch 22 nature of HMO coverage. My son (22 at the time) was directed to an emergency room by his primary care doctor and the bill at the ER came to $5,000. His insurance maxed out at $1,000 and he spent the next 18 months paying that off. I have very good insurance (provided by the government since I am a retired officer). I was hospitalized for observation and tests at the same hospital for 3 days. The bill came to over $17,000. My insurance paid around $5,000 and the hospital had to write the rest off.

Insurance is unaffordable for many individuals without employment coverage. My parents were paying over $1,200 per month in the early 90's before they qualified for Medicare.

My step-son recently married and it will cost over $500 per month to add his 25 year old wife to his employer provided insurance coverage. That is an awful lot for a young couple.

People like me who have good coverage can access the finest health care system in the world. However, the under-insured are very limited in their ability to access certain treatments. "Sicko" tells of a woman who was transported to the hospital in an ambulance after an accident and had the ambulance fee denied by her HMO since it wasn't pre-approved. This was verified by several media outlets (I did not see the film, I read some reports about its accuracy that cited the ambulance story as true).

Given the astronomical costs of health care, I do not see how "health savings accounts" can be part of the solution for any but the most well-off. Furthermore, I do not think market mechanisms work so efficiently in health care because money becomes secondary for most of us if our health is seriously at risk.

Additionally, our insurance system is weighted towards the corrective instead of the preventive. Encouraging people to get more preventive care now would save money on treating illnesses later.

I am highly skeptical of a single payer system and share the concerns about rationing of treatment and waits for service. I experienced some of that on acitve duty since the military has socialized medicine. Now that I can use the TRICARE insurance, I stay away from the military treatment facilities. However, it is disengeuous to suggest that we do not have serious problems as a society with the current state of our health care system. Platitudes about the market and reducing malpractice suits do not begin to deal with reality. (I have read about a number of studies that say malpractice accounts for a very small amount of health care costs and that malpractice itself is a significant cause of death at many hospitals.)

I admit I do not have very good answers. But I have very little use for those who deny the problems.

bsimon -- as someone who has studied economics, I can tell you it's anything but a zero sum game. So you're argument is inherently worthless.

A lot of people imagine this pie, broken up however it is. And you want to make the slices more and more even.

The truth is, you can grow the pie, in addition to changing the shapes of the pieces.

And growing the pie helps everyone.

I just went to Mexico last weekend. (SOME OF) Our nation's "poor" don't even know what poverty is.

That's because, while they might have a small slice, it's a small slice of a HUGE pie.

A new report by the Federal Reserve reveals that the "wealth gap" in America may be the largest ever. According to the report, the difference in median net wealth between the wealthiest 10 percent of families and the poorest 20 percent jumped by nearly 70 percent between 1998 and 2001. The gap between whites and minorities grew by 21 percent. Both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, should agree that this state of affairs is troubling.

News of this report will undoubtedly set off a new round of debate over tax policy and the value of various government social programs. But a remedy is already at hand: President Bush's proposal to allow workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts. It will build wealth across the board. And it will help end the wealth gap.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/mt-02-07-03.html

In a modern open-market capitalist society, entrepreneurs get rich and the poor get better off as a result -- OF COURSE they're not going to get as rich as fast (duh). So, of course the gap thereby gets wider -- but the top AND BOTTOM of the gap both rise to levels much higher than before. The gap is widening?? Well, hooray for everyone's sake! ESPECIALLY the poor!

http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm

Mike, My sources are my two sons and the sons of friens that I have spoken with during their leaves and between deployments. I am hearing that they have to intervene between the Iraqi militray and the police all of the time. The military is most Shia and the local police are Sunni. They WILL kill each other if we aren't there, actively preventing it. Moreover, they tell me that the military will run rampant through Sunni towns, raping women and murdering people in cold blood. They are hated and armed by us and, so, we too are hated. It gets even more confused when these young men see posters around the villages they sweep through, offering bounties for dead Amercians. Those boundies are huge, enough money to feed and cloithe and house a family for years. SO there is no end of unemployed young men, willing to sacrficae their lives to provide something for their starving families.
Most of what we hear on the new is utter rubbish. Most IED's are artilliary shells coupled to propane tanks. The artilliary shells ARE NOT from Iran, eithr. They are laying about, all over the countryside, tens of thousands of them freely available to anyone wishing to simply pick them up. The artilliary shells are preferred to mines becasue they provide a ready shaped charge that will penetrate the weakened under-carriage of tanks and Bradley's. Another press lie is that we have "friends". No we don't. Our troops don't trust anyone. Any and every civilian and soldier will kill you in a heartbeat. We stopped embedding U.S. troops with Iraqi troops because they literally SELL them to various war lords and "insurgent" groups. Jobs, again, are hard to come by and people are hungry and that was a quick way of making money. Every medic will tell you that being deployed with an all Iraqi squad is a death sentence.
Basically Mike, we are dealing with chaos, with a complete breakdown of civil norms, of government, of anything remotely resembling law and order. Much of the population is fearful and rather fed up with the non-ending violence, but the are in pretty much the same position as that family that was murdered this week in a home invasion. They have been disarmed, the police don't provide any real protect, they simply investigate the crime afterwards, and so they sit there as cash cows, ready made victims for criminals and things.

Mike wants evidence
"whether or not the wealth exchange has actually happened"

The argument is that the economy is a zero sum game. In other words, split up the big ole American Pie into 300 million (give or take) pieces and see who has what. Compare the size of your piece to the size it was 10 years ago. Then compare the size of the one percenters to the sizes of their pieces 10 years ago. Unless you're one of the one percenters, your piece has shrunk - if we average the amount that the bottom 90% have shrunk, it comes out to about $7k apiece.

Trotsky - I'm thinking about the source of my numbers, it may have been Ben Stein who has occasional pieces in the Sunday NYT business section; he's been discussing the subject a lot over the last several months.

Mike writes
"bsimon -- you thought you had me, but you've failed to prove any correlation between any govt policy and upward wealth redistribution."

The Bush Admin & its supporters are claiming that their tax policy has caused the 'booming' economy. That 'booming' economy is not benefitting all of us, it is benefitting an extremely small percentage of us.

bsimon -- I'm still waiting on the edge of my seat for:

1. what specific government policy has caused this wealth exchange,

2. whether or not the wealth exchange has actually happened,

3. and your evidence proving one caused the other.

I am a Lib, of course I know everything, including what's good for you.

Trotsky writes
"bsimon, those look like Kruggman numbers - known to be a sham. Let's see the link if you want to claim that."

The actual numbers aren't relevant - the ones I provided are close enough for government work, as they say. The point is that the bulk of people in this country are fighting to stay even, while an extreme minority are benefitting astronomically. Furthermore, the point isn't to be 'right' or win an argument about the 'solution' but to provoke discussion and challenge some people's beliefs.

I tend to think that investment in people is a worthwhile government function. I think that government policy should promote basic skills & health in our citizenry and that spending money to educate our populace will pay enormous dividends in the future. I think that small-government conservatives make compelling arguments about how throwing money at problems doesn't solve them - but that doesn't mean the problems shouldn't be solved, it means we have to figure out how to solve them most effectively.

Just like your sources for the Democratic party's "positions" on various issues?

MikeB - you would be right if you were right. You said "there is no possible fix you can do".

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Honestly. Who told you? I wish I had the CNN/George Soros/Crystal Ball you had.

You're a civilian, right?

Have you ever been to Iraq?

What information has made you believe this?

I am honestly curious. I just don't understand some people that think they know everything. How do you know everything? What are your sources?

Because I can easily tell you mine.

someone calling themself "bsimon enjoys beating his/her head against a brick wall" writes
"There is no other explanation for his/her continued engagement of mike, who is nothing but a classic troll"

Or I'm bored (a 'him' bored, not her).

Posters here kepp using the term "surrender". Since when is it surrender when you realize that you made a horrible mistake, there is no possible fix you can do, and the best course is to simply stop. "Surrender" is another of those propaganda terms, invented by the right wing nut jobs, to dedge responsibly for the horrible mess they made to begin with. Iraq was a stable country when we went in there. It was managed by a brutal dictatorship, but so what. Most of that regions countries are managed by brutal dictators. Every time we, in the West, have tried to impose our ideas of "democracy" upon them it has led to a diaster. Jimmy Carter tried it with Iran and we got the current crop of religious nut jobs. The EU has tried it with Turkey, holding out EU memebership as some sort of reward, and it now appears that the worst of the Islamists have taken control. Ditoo with Reagan and Lebanon. Now, the people who tried to impose our ideas of democracy did so with the best of intentions, but it has backfired every time. When will we learn that nothing short of a brutal dictatorship will work to keep the various scabbling factions in the Middle East from killing each other and spreading their violence, intolerance and hatred to our own shores. Getting out is the only rational thing to do.

"There is no other explanation for his/her continued engagement of mike, who is nothing but a classic troll."

Mike's more fun than those rufuses.

kowardly kos klone signals retreat again. More than one line too much for you dumpkopf?

bsimon, those look like Kruggman numbers - known to be a sham. Let's see the link if you want to claim that.

There is no other explanation for his/her continued engagement of mike, who is nothing but a classic troll.

bsimon -- you thought you had me, but you've failed to prove any correlation between any govt policy and upward wealth redistribution.

What Govt policy are you referring to?

What evidence exists to link these two?

Mike senses what's up
"though you're probably trying to lead me down a garden path, I'll bite... Sure [gov't policy should be changed if it promotes the redistribution of wealth]."


The recent gains by top income earners have come at a cost to the bulk of US households. I don't recall all the breakouts in terms of which % wins and which loses, but I believe it is the top 1% has seen net growth in their portion of national wealth, the next 9% are even and the bottom 90% have lost their net worth. The transfer of wealth has been as though the bottom 90% of households wrote a check for $7000 to the top 1%.

The point being: Conservatives often bash tax policy (i.e. 'death' tax) or social programs as being little more than programs designed to redistribute wealth in some kind of commie / socialist program of equality. Yet the recent economy has instead done the opposite - it has redistributed wealth upwards - the middle class is losing ground, but the richest of the rich are collecting more and more. Why aren't conservatives upset about this redistribution of wealth? If redistribution downwards is evil, why isn't redistribution upwards evil?

"Hey Nuance/Surrender -- I suggest you read above. Unfortunately, your neglecting this entire thread has made us all look bad."

It says volumes that you think I was advocating for Republicans. I suggest you read what I wrote. Republicans are the weak-willed, spineless, never-had-the-guts-to-fight surrender monkeys who speak of 'complications' and 'nuance' and crap like that when it comes to actually fighting terrorists.

Al Qeada in Iraq hasn't knocked over any towers and I doubt they ever will, Osama and his cronies are doing pretty good at that. I'm all for using the entire might and force of our brave boys and girls in uniform, but you republicans run crying about 'complications' because you don't have the stomach for the fight.

Trotsky asks
"do you want to pay over 70% of your income out?"

I don't. But I'm happy to pay 26% or even 30% instead of 25% if it means that I pay for benefits I receive, rather than benefitting from borrowed money that my children will have to pay back. And I bet that such a minor change in tax policy would not have a detrimental impact on the economy.

Regarding the claim that
"It would seem that if we are indeed on a particular Laffer curve, that raising taxes will send us back where we came from - lower tax revenue."

I would argue that it is invalid to conclude that recent revenues are a result solely of change in tax policy. Kindof similar to how the boom years in the 90's weren't the result of Clinton's tax increases.

bsimon -- though you're probably trying to lead me down a garden path, I'll bite.

Sure.

You throw out the proper word and the dogs salivate: surrender, retreat, taxes...

Hey Nuance/Surrender -- I suggest you read above. Unfortunately, your neglecting this entire thread has made us all look bad.

FH -- another good couple of points. We've already chosen the battlefield, why change it.

And if any of you don't think we're fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you're so far entrenched in Vietnam-era protest that you're not worth talking to.

I asked
"Should government policy promote or restrict the redistribution of wealth?"

Mike said, I think in response to the above
"Neither"

So, if gov't should neither promote nor restrict the redistribution of wealth, should government policy change if it is found to promote the redistribution of wealth?

Trotsky, I'm not the one being dishonest. In arguing that our current system is perfect and universal healthcare is bad, you're praising government-run healthcare.

Our current system isn't fully capitalistic. If you want to only talk about the private segment of our current healthcare system, you're only talking about 68% of the population. (Actually less, since public healthcare for the elderly is so common.) If you're going to say that our current system is great because public healthcare fills in the gaps of private programs, then you're praising government-run healthcare.

What do you think the role of government should be in private healthcare? Despite your posturing about "socialized medicine", you clearly don't mind that ~15% of the country is covered by government healthcare. In fact, you seem happy that the rate of government healthcare coverage is increasing. You're defending the status quo, even though the status quo doesn't support your argument that a capitalistic system is perfect. What's the deal?

"As for hypotheticals...not very helpful."

Yes, let's not think about hypotheticals. how pre-9/11 of you.

that all 18 benchmarks have been met

i think this is a bit much to expect from a nascient government. your new Lib congress has only met one of six of its benchmarks and they have over 200 years experience doing this.

citing examples is not changing the topic. the laffer curve is fine if you want to use that. since we won't be able to agree on whether a marginal raise in tax rates will increase tax income, perhaps we can agree that tax revenue is at an all time high, seemingly after the last tax decrease. It would seem that if we are indeed on a particular Laffer curve, that raising taxes will send us back where we came from - lower tax revenue.

but I am not so concerned with the meat and potatos of tax revenue - i would be happy to see them starve to death. My take on tax policy is more philosophical. along the lines of what is the proper role for a federal government in the way of taxing and spending. If the pols agree that the federal government needs to be involved, tax enough to pay for it. why the shell game with SS, medicare, etc. Are the Libs afraid when the actual price is revealed, the public will balk? do you want to pay over 70% of your income out?

"I'd rather protect innocents, Americans, and freedom."

Mike, please explain: 1) how invading Iraq and making a mess there was protecting Americans, when the enemy was in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and still is to a great degree).

2) How invading Iraq was protecting freedom?

3) Who put it in the U.S.' mission statement that it is our obligation to protect innocents all over the world? If it is, then we have a massive job we're ignoring by limiting ourselves to Iraq. How do you propose we protect the innocents in China, North Korea, the African countries, from South American Dictators (and Hugo Chavez), etc.?

Troops aren't for winning peace. We're still fighting the taliban, lets go after them. It's a global war on terror, switching one front for another is not surrender.

Posted by: | July 25, 2007 03:08 PM

The question implies that we are not already fighting them, which I regect.

As for hypotheticals...not very helpful.
Why would we invade a tangential target when we are already engaged at the heart of the problem area?

"FH -- bravo on making a very good point.

The Afghans are a very complicated, tough, and proud people.

The almighty Soviet could not win, with superior numbers, technology, and firepower (no thanks to the CIA, of course).

I think it's interesting that people are so cavalier about just "redeploying" "90%" of our Iraq forces to Afghanistan.

It's a different ballgame, and I'm glad you pointed that out."

Why do you repubtard surrender flag wavers want to cut and run on Afghanistan. 'Nuance' and 'different ballgame' are just codewords for not having the stomach to fight. You yellow cowards want to give Afghanistan to Osama and his taliban cronies so they can hit America again with impugnity. Why do you hate America's troops so much? They can fight in Iraq but in Afghanistan suddenly the people are 'complicated'. You're just scared.

Neither

"The problem with this plan is that the Afghans would almost certainly see the influx of all those troops as an invasion of their country, which would turn the populace against us. It would also give the Taliban many more targets to try and increase the amount of collateral damage, which has already been problematic as we try and walk the tightrope of being aggressive on the Taliban without alienating ordinary Afghans."

What, you mean like in Iraq (replace Taliban with Shia, sunni, wahabbi Sunni, Iranian agents, al qaede in ariq, etc...)?

What happens when the next attack happens on US soil and they're from Somalia or Chad or Indonesia or the Phillippines. Apart rom skewering the whole 'fight them there so we don't have to fight them here' logic, how to we send an attacking force into somalia or chad when our forces are seriously depleted in Iraq, playing nursemaid to an insurgency. The troops won the war already. Troops aren't for winning peace. We're still fighting the taliban, lets go after them. It's a global war on terror, switching one front for another is not surrender.

While we're on loaded questions, here's one:

Should government policy promote or restrict the redistribution of wealth?

blarg - From your own study - why twist the facts all the time? do you need to always lie/spin to fool your constituency?

"Between 1999 and 2004, the percentage of people under
age 65 with no health insurance coverage at a given
point in time has remained between 16% and 17%,
whereas the percentage with private health insurance has
declined and public programs have expanded to fill in
some of the gaps."

OMG - public programs expanded under Bush - don't tell the times. this could ruin their gig.

why would people who have free public coverage seek out private coverage. your argument is just silly.

In Iceland they have essentially free heat - because there is warm volcanoes under the whole island. do you think a measure of public heating should include all the Franklin stoves they don't sell? Is this another form of tricky Lib math?

and the 16% includes illegals, those who choose not to buy it despite having the money and half who will get it within four months at their new job. doesn't seem like such a crisis now does it? How about a little honesty in this debate instead of power seeking?

Trotsky writes
"does raising taxes harm the economy - why yes , how much harm?"

Well, now you're trying to change the subject, just like you predicted you would in an earlier post.

Regarding taxes, according to the Laffer Curve, there is a 'sweet spot' in the tax rate at which revenues are maximized - which implies that they aren't so high that the economy is adversely impacted, nor so low that the gov't doesn't collect enough $ to perform its duties. What we don't know is at what point this 'sweet spot' exists. Back when the highest tax rates were around 70%, conservatives used the Laffer Curve to make a pretty compelling argument for cutting taxes. But they've given up on referencing the Laffer Curve, apparently in fear of finding out that taxes have finally been cut to the point where further cuts are no longer effective. So, in short, the question does not provide enough information to answer; raising taxes does not always hurt the economy, just like cutting taxes does not always help.

"that is different from what you originally stated. you implied no progress in the least has been made"

It is not. I said 0 of 18 benchmarks had been met, which is 100% accurate. In fact, what I did say, was that I look forward to the announcement in September that the surge has been successful, that all 18 benchmarks have been met and that our troops - or at least our part time troops - can start coming home. This was in response to your claim that the surge is working. Surely you haven't steered me wrong, or setup false hopes?

FH -- bravo on making a very good point.

The Afghans are a very complicated, tough, and proud people.

The almighty Soviet could not win, with superior numbers, technology, and firepower (no thanks to the CIA, of course).

I think it's interesting that people are so cavalier about just "redeploying" "90%" of our Iraq forces to Afghanistan.

It's a different ballgame, and I'm glad you pointed that out.

To reiterate, 0 of 18 goals have been met by Iraqis, though the White House says that 'satisfactory' progess has been made on 8 of them.

that is different from what you originally stated. you implied no progress in the least has been made. that is why I wondered if you work at the times.
If you want to make your argument stronger, state the oppositions point of view and then tear it down, being fair on your critique. why do all you Libs need to lie about everything to win an argument? Are the facts that much against you?

for example - are lines long for socialist health care - indeed they are. what do you get in trade?
does immediate retreat from iraq involve any consequences - yes it does, discuss.
does raising taxes harm the economy - why yes , how much harm?
does ignoring terror, public health care, immigration and other serious topics in a national debate on a slanted network tell us anything about the nature of Dem politics - quite right
does advocating an open ended committment to green theory, while ignoring cost, science and policy, evoke irresponsibility - yes?
should liberals be allowed to throw more and more money into failing programs that have demonstrated no effect after all the other money? got me on that one.

I get my statistics about healthcare from the National Center for Disease Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#133

Table 133 in this PDF describes private insurance coverage of people under 65. In 2004, that coverage was 68.8%.

The issue here is private coverage. If you're going to praise our "perfectly functioning capitalistic system", you can't include the people covered by the evil and incompetent government. The capitalistic system covers approximately 2/3 of the country; it does absolutely nothing for the other third.

And I presume you're suggesting that it would be prudent to retreat.

Prudent for whom?

There's no doubt, that in the immediate future, that would be the best for the troops.

But what happens when Iraqis are slain in mass numbers?

What happens when the terrorist follow us home?

You can keep your so-called "prudence". Me, I'd rather protect innocents, Americans, and freedom.

"I believe in a pull-out of Iraq and a redeployment of 70-90% of those troops to Afghanistan to help stabilize the country, pin in Osama and the taliban and provide us the kind of military and political leverage we need on Iran."

The problem with this plan is that the Afghans would almost certainly see the influx of all those troops as an invasion of their country, which would turn the populace against us. It would also give the Taliban many more targets to try and increase the amount of collateral damage, which has already been problematic as we try and walk the tightrope of being aggressive on the Taliban without alienating ordinary Afghans. Lastly, the terrain in Afghanistan is unsuitable to large numbers of troops...the Soviets learned this lesson the hard way.

bsimon: In the long tradition of Commander and Chief's, Bush has every right to hire and fire as many generals as he feels necessary until he finds one who can achieve success. The "Surge" is new, it is having modest success at this point. Will the Iraqi's find the political motivation to do what is necessary to bring their country together? Eventually I feel they will, if not, we have other options. I am certainly not opposed to the abolishment of the government and the setting-up of a "strong-man", or any other viable alternative if it comes to that.

Mike, sometimes in War it is best to take the prudent action. All good military commanders will tell you that, even if the politicians won't.

From Webster's: Prudence

1: the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason

2: sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs

3: skill and good judgment in the use of resources

4: caution or circumspection as to danger or risk

Time to be prudent about Iraq!

Trotsky writes
"the state of the hate filled blogger is sad. but when forcibly confronted they demonstrate what they wish our army would do - run away, surrender, hide, ignore the battle, change the subject."

Trotsky, I didn't see your response to my correction of your misstatement of fact about Iraq (not) meeting its 18 goals. Did you change the subject on me? Or just ignore your incorrect claim & hope nobody called you out on it?

To reiterate, 0 of 18 goals have been met by Iraqis, though the White House says that 'satisfactory' progess has been made on 8 of them.

no retort so attack motivations, personalities, etc. typical Lib loser and prevaricator.
"
Mr. Zouk:

does ANYONE like you?"

Translation - I got nothing to say about issues when it gets past the one liners or what I can find over at Kos. so I must fall back on this crap. sorry, that is the best I can do. same as always. why do you think they kicked me out of the infantry for being too stupid?

I will now revert to completely ignoring Kos Klone. what a waste of skin.

"And if we always gave up when THINGS GOT HARD, where would we be?"

How about not creating things which become hard, so we don't have to even consider giving up on the mess which we created!

Posted By No-Name Coward: "It's pretty ignorant to make snide remarks about a poster's mention of WWII not too long after you made a snide remark about Libs and Normandy."

Of course, the reference to Normandy was not a unique reference to WWII - it was simply stating the idea that WARS ARE HARD. And if we always gave up when THINGS GOT HARD, where would we be? You can replace Normandy with anything you like.

Whereas, the other poster was making a Direct Comparison between WWII and the WOT.

Then again, libs are libs and they are professionals at taking things out of context.

beaten by facts, arguments and persuasion, the ignorant Kos koward - a drop-out from the military, flexes his anguish at his previous comrades in arms. his littany of lies and deceit aren't selling and beaten by zouk again and again, due to reason, logic and citations from zouk, the ignorant Kos koward leaves the field of battle in disgrace, sending off one last stupid parting shot:

"American Thinker" - an oxymoron?

Posted by: "military intelligence" | July 25, 2007 02:19 PM

the state of the hate filled blogger is sad. but when forcibly confronted they demonstrate what they wish our army would do - run away, surrender, hide, ignore the battle, change the subject.

Mr. Zouk:

does ANYONE like you?
does ANYONE think you're a thoughtful person?
does seeing you bring a smile to ANYONE'S face?
does ANYONE ever say about you, "He's a nice guy." - ?

Do you help people across the street?
Would you mow a neighbor's lawn - as a favor, for free - if asked nicely?
Do you belong to any community organizations/do any volunteer work?
Have you ever done anything nice for someone whom you did not know?
Have you ever done anything nice for someone who was not yourself?

Why do I suspect that the answer to each of those questions is "no"?

"I am shocked at how low the liberal value of an American Soldier or Marine's life is worth. Wow."

Mike, ask Zouk how he values the lives of U. S. military. To him they are simply numeric factors in a cost benefit analysis.

I've seen far higher regard for the soldier's actual lives from probable Liberal bloggers the Fix, than from the Neo-Con parrots.

Mike: "And it's pretty ignorant to compare this fight to WWII, where the enemy was centralized and easily identifiable."

It's pretty ignorant to make snide remarks about a poster's mention of WWII not too long after you made a snide remark about Libs and Normandy.

no retort so attack motivations, personalities, etc. typical Lib loser and prevaricator.

followed by shallow posting using someone else's name. you are a cretin and a loser Kos koward.

thanks for showing us your true colors - yellow.

"American Thinker" - an oxymoron?

Truthunter says "I would like to see a poll where the question is: Is it OK to send your son or daughter to fight in Iraq"

This is one of the most vile statements you've made in quite some time, TH. I'm surprised at your level of ignorance on the workings of the executive branch. See, the CIC gets to decide if it's OK to send soldiers to fight wars. Since you seem to be stuck in Vietnam-protest mode, maybe you need reminding that we have an all-volunteer military now; the draftees who did not sign up willingly are no longer serving. Those that sign up are over the age of consent and don't need mommy or daddy's permission.

But in any case, why not pose such a question on your own personal blog that we've all seen advertised a million times. Then at least mikeB can cast his vote and you will have allowed him to voice his parental objections.

"Walter Reed Hospital is run by a private company, due to recent outsourcing. During the Clinton administration, when it was run by the government, the VA had some of the best healthcare in the country."

Walter Reed is an Army hospital, not a VA hospital.

The VA healthcare system is totally separate from the Dept. of Defenses'. When the Walter Reed problems surfaced people began to mix and match the two systems. Some lazy reporters in the MSM contributed to the confusion.

but you expect anyone to believe what's on a far-right blog like american "thinker"?

no retort so attack motivations, personalities, etc. typical Lib loser and prevaricator.

no ignorant Kos koward - I don't expect YOU to believe anything that you don't already know from reading Kos, nation, huff, NYT, etc. My arguments are not aimed at hate-filled zealots. This blog demonstrated yesterday that you and your kind are a small pitiful minority of Dems. I never attempt to convince fools like you. shouldn't you be getting back to answering the phone now?

After flopping out of the military and not getting that hoped for promotion, I would think you might want to actually do something productive at this new job. but of course that would be contrary to your inherent nature. hence the lib thing, looking for a handout.

The ability to read for meaning is not necessary in order to enjoy "American Thinker." It may in fact get in the way.

I am not Zouk. He is far smarter and better-looking than I. No, the closest I come to him is a collection of some of his wisdom, neatly printed on a soft pink paper with luscious purple ink. Some, but not all, of the misspellings have been corrected - I am, after all, a professor - but I felt it would take away from his voice to correct them all.
Indeed, often I return to my office frustrated from a dispute with one of my cantankerous Democratic students, and sit before my collection of Zoukisms for a soothing read. "Libs" I say to myself, "Libs." Like magic, my growing migraine suddenly cuts and runs. Would that I could communicate my appreciation to the King, but alas, our love is doomed never to be.

Will -- Just because YOU happen to think we should allocate more fighting men to Afghanistan doesn't mean that the COMMON LIBERAL AGENDA isn't to mis-use an important sounding word.

And it's pretty ignorant to compare this fight to WWII, where the enemy was centralized and easily identifiable.

There are only 2 clear battlegrounds in this war, and if we back down from one, at least another will open up. And if you want that battleground to be here, where even more innocent Americans will die, then I feel fully justified in questioning (people like) you.

Senator Coleman is just a lying surrender monkey then!

Blarg - making up numbers again?

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx

any of you Libs want to throw numbers around, show me where you got them. Otherwise I will just assume you are making them up or lying as usual.

Mike writes
"So, yes - you misused a word, in defense of a liberal plan, in a way that liberals commonly use to veil their true message.

I apologize."

Well thank you for the apology.

Though I would argue with your characterization of 'redeployment' being liberalese for 'surrender'. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Bi-partisan (i.e. not all flaming liberals) Iraq Study Group calls for redeployment of troops both within Iraq & in neighboring countries. Sen Coleman (R-MN) called for similar selective redeployment within Iraq following the announcement of the surge (which he did not agree with).

I recommend retraining your reflexes regarding 'redeployment'.

zouk/trotsky/walter/mike/et al: you brainiacs mock left-wing blogs, but you expect anyone to believe what's on a far-right blog like american "thinker"?

pretty funny. I put "thinker" in quotes for obvious reasons, of course.

So I post facts and links about the surge working and the Lib retort - as usual - fingers in the ears.

you monkeys aren't worth my time. Are there any honest Libs out there? I don't mind that your views are nonsensicle. But if you are caught with your pants down (as Libs are wont to do) admit it. No finger wagging and lying about it.

"So again, how is it working?"

assuming you can read, go here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/the_surge_succeeds.html

The 12:30 post was by a professor at GMU? It's hard to imagine a professor calling people "Lib liars". I guess that school has some low academic standards. Either that or you, Zouk, are making posts in other peoples' names in order to get credibility. How very honest of you.

In your post masquerading as Walter, you said that we have a "perfectly functioning capitalistic system". Even if you take the ludicrous position that our healthcare system functions perfectly for those it covers, it doesn't cover 1/3 of the country under 65. That's what you call a perfectly-functioning system?

"bsimon -- this isn't even worth either of our time (sorry for the late response, by the way).

"Redeployment" is a brand new Pelosi-Reedism that has been employed by the defeatists. When you used the word, which I still maintain was misused, I admit, I made some assumptions about you.

Then again, when a lot of libs say "it's time for something new" - "it's time for a change", there is only ONE option which they are referring to - retreat.

You can even read that sentiment on this thread.

So, yes - you misused a word, in defense of a liberal plan, in a way that liberals commonly use to veil their true message.

I apologize"

So when the US redeployed it's troops in WWII from unsuccessful battlefronts to other areas in order to better attack the Axis menace, were they admitting defeat? If I happen to think the war on terror will go a lot better by redeploying most of the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, does that mean I'm advocating the defeat of American troops? In your anger Mike, you would be suited to remember America, and Americans such as myself are not the enemy.

"questionably-motivated"

that's why the Senate voted overwhelmingly for it.
More lies to prop up inconsistencies and weak positions.

"They ARE there now" - so is it a civil war? - apparently NOT. Now we are getting somewhere.

"The rest of the world is re-organizing itself into new political and financial groupings in which we are not necessarily being asked to play a part." - OK, let them stash their money somewhere else. you can't really be this clueless can you? France, Germany etc are comimng crawling back after the experiment with uber-socialism, which failed them miserably.

"70% of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq" - do you think we want to be there? the point is we will leave after our goals are met. Our goal is not to elect hillary. do you Libs have any inkling of following through on something difficult. take the war on poverty. how much has that cost? how much can you show for it? when we will accept defeat and go home? Its been over 30 years now. by your standards this is a no brainer, something a Lib is destined to understand.

I believe in a pull-out of Iraq and a redeployment of 70-90% of those troops to Afghanistan to help stabilize the country, pin in Osama and the taliban and provide us the kind of military and political leverage we need on Iran. I'm also a liberal. I guess my desire to do what it takes to beat Osama, the Taliban and hamstring Iran's nuclear efforts makes me a surrender monkey?

Dijetlo: "The surge is working" is con-speak for "We have no idea if the surge is working."

No Facts: The surge is working?
Really?
I thought the goal of the surge was to suppress sectarian violence in Iraq? Give the Iraqi government some breathing room to effect a political solution to their civil conflict.
In reality, sectarian violence continues to climb and the Iraqi government is on month long vacation. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any progress made towards attaining the primary goals of the "Surge", at least nothing that can be quantified or reasonably inferred.
So again, how is it working?

bsimon -- this isn't even worth either of our time (sorry for the late response, by the way).

"Redeployment" is a brand new Pelosi-Reedism that has been employed by the defeatists. When you used the word, which I still maintain was misused, I admit, I made some assumptions about you.

Then again, when a lot of libs say "it's time for something new" - "it's time for a change", there is only ONE option which they are referring to - retreat.

You can even read that sentiment on this thread.

So, yes - you misused a word, in defense of a liberal plan, in a way that liberals commonly use to veil their true message.

I apologize.

Trotsky: "Blarg - you can find Walter over at George Mason University. He is a distinguished professor of economics and actually knows a thing or two about the subject. It would seem you don't."

Sure, Trotsky, this "distinguished" professor is spending time making anonymous posts on message boards.

Trotsky says
"that was 8/18 - still with the lies to make your point. are you that weak?"

BZZZTTT!!! They met 0 of 18. The White House claimed 'satisfactory' progress on 8 of 18.

And to the annoying Trotsky/sand flea/Zouk:

of course it's great that the US armed forces are having more success in Iraq. This should not in any way take the focus off the poorly-planned, questionably-motivated, and (at least until recently) poorly-led nature of this military adventure. Let's recap:

-al Qaeda was NOT there before we went in . They ARE there now. So if bin Laden and co. are claiming it as the "central front," it's only because we have allowed them to do so. That's a gift to the enemy, courtesy of policy decisions made by The Decider.
-In a recent poll, 70% of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq.
-At last count, we have so far spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq. Have we gotten our money's worth? Keep in mind that not a small portion of that amount is now in the pockets of Halliburton board members, even though they halted work on many (all?) of their initiatives in Iraq. For those keeping score at home, half a trillion dollars would pay for universal health coverage, among other worthy expenses. It would also take a big bite out of the national debt.
-The rest of the world is re-organizing itself into new political and financial groupings in which we are not necessarily being asked to play a part.

Football fans (Mark in Austin? and others) will appreciate the analogy of a team who, after losing 15-20 yards on the first two downs, runs a successful draw play and makes it back to the line of scrimmage. That's where we are now - 3rd and 10, and we just called a timeout. We are not "winning," it's late in the second half, and the fans are calling for the coaching staff to be fired. Zouk and some others, however, are hoisting a warm domestic brew to the fact that we have regained some of the yardage we have lost.

This laissez-faire attitude toward the heart of the middle east is almost incomprehensible, and its supporters really have only one reason...it's hard.

there is another reason - election victory. Reid said it himself. the Libs can't win on any of their tax and expand positions, so they look for something easier to manipulate with their ally the LSM. It is their only hope.

"despite hitting 0 of 18 a week or two ago)."

that was 8/18 - still with the lies to make your point. are you that weak?

Blarg - you can find Walter over at George Mason University. He is a distinguished professor of economics and actually knows a thing or two about the subject. It would seem you don't.

We used to have private fire departments, there were badges on the outside of the house to determine if you had paid. the problem was that if you paid and your neighbor didn't, you still might get burned. this is actually a local common good which has little if any contraversy over its support. But you will note it is run by counties and small cities, not the federal government. that way you get to decide if Hannibel MO needs a new engine and new boots, not Hillary. See how nicely that works?

there is an old problem in economics called the free-rider dilemma. Look into it if you want an answer to your fire department question. And, yes, the free riders are ALL Libs, as usual.

"functioning perfectly, with absolutely no flaws" - is that your requirement? you are going to have a very hard time arriving there with Hillary-care. consider that the list of paid-for drugs will be quite short. Meanwhile the line you must wait in for every service (at the price Hillary sets)promises to be long, long, long. Just like in all the other socialist countries.

is your proposal that we ruin it for everyone so we can all suffer together?

FH writes
"I think it would be a disaster to leave Iraq in its present state, which is why a cannot support a candidate who advocates an immediate pull-out."

I agree. Where you and I likely differ is that I also think staying the course will also be a disaster.

"bsimon, let me get this straight, you are fully prepared to declare defeat, but if the white house even mentions victory it is too soon?"

Huh? Where did 1) I declare defeat or 2) the White House declare victory (other than the 'mission accomplished' photo-op, of course)?

What I said was, 4 1/2 years of whack-a-mole was enough & we need to find a strategy that will achieve our strategic goals & implement it. Sending our troops back to fallujah to clean out the evildoers every year or two doesn't feel like a good long term strategy. If you want to argue the surge is working, fine - great in fact. I look forward to General Petreus announcing the success of the surge in September. I look forward to the announcement that the Iraqis have met all the benchmarks set out for them (despite hitting 0 of 18 a week or two ago). And, most of all, I look forward to the new withdrawl plan of the bulk of our troops, so that at least the the Guard & Reserves can return to their civilian lives.

It certainly didn't take 4 years (and counting) to clear the Germans out of France (and Poland, and Norway, and Denmark, and whatever other little countries are over there).

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 11:40 AM

But after the war we stayed until the Germans were able to support themselves. This rebuilding plan took decades. I wonder what the world would look like today if the planned Nazi insurgency had actually taken place, and we had decided it was no longer worth the effort.

The reason we stayed is because we did not want to leave a weakened and easily corruptible country to fall into the hands of the communists. We also stayed so that we could be a buffer against further communist encroachment into Europe. I can't understand why so many on this site are willing to cede Iraq to the group that gets the most guns, even if that group happens to be our mortal enemy.

This laissez-faire attitude toward the heart of the middle east is almost incomprehensible, and its supporters really have only one reason...it's hard. I think it would be a disaster to leave Iraq in its present state, which is why a cannot support a candidate who advocates an immediate pull-out.

sorry - this is re-posted from the last thread cuz I guessed we were done over there. Heads up, Mike:

Mike, of course you think you're right. Most people do. As someone with experience in Iraq, your opinion is certainly differently informed than mine is. (However, I have a cousin - a major in the Rangers - who has now been deployed twice, and he does not agree with you.)

Respectfully - and don't get me wrong, I do respect your experience - I have to say that I think using "ideology" and "morality" to determine how viable a solution is represents a lot of what I don't like and think is absolutely wrong and dangerous about this war.

Remember, despite what is currently the party line about our reasons for entering the war ("to fight al Qaeda, who attacked us on 09.11"), at the time of "shock and awe," our motivation was to disarm Saddam/dismantle his nuclear/bio/chem weapons capability. No one at the time seriously thought that he was an author of or contributor to the 09.11 attacks - in fact, as we have recently learned, our intelligence services were pretty sure that he was NOT involved, and that there was NO al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

Bush's success over the six years which have followed has been to keep the focus on fear, and off logic, and that has enabled him to pursue a list of domestic and foreign policies which have been harmful to our country. If the situation in Iraq IS improving - I said "if" - it is still far less stable than it was at the time of the invasion, and our presence there has so far has both helped motivate the creation of an al Qaeda presence there AND, by taking the pressure off, allowed the original (Afghan) organization to rebuild in Pakistan, to the point where some experts now say it is as strong as on 09.11. How is that progress?

And FYI, I do not blame America, or the armed forces (with the exception of Haditha, Abu Ghraib, etc.) for this failure. It has been a failure of leadership - leadership whose policy decisions were predicated on "ideology" and "morality" (or at least their understanding of it) rather than "reality."

I do NOT think we can pull out of Iraq completely, nor do I think it can happen quickly. I DO think that the analysis of experts that at the current rate of deployment the military will be unable to sustain its troop commitments beyond next spring MUST be taken into account.

and in re: draft/larger army - I think that if we are determined to continue an aggressive military posture in the world at large, we must have a larger force. I do not think the political support exists to re-establish the draft, as I do not think that the majority in this country trust its civilian leaders (who have, at least at the top levels, no military experience to speak of) with the lives of their children at this point. And recruitment goals are being missed on a monthly basis. So what's the solution? I have to think that either the mission must be changed to one which has a greater degree of public support and confidence or a great deal more money must be spent on pa