Ron Paul Hope for America Bicycle Tour

Bring your bicycles, your love for Our Constitution, Freedom

Sept 15-23 we will ride South Carolina for Ron Paul.

You wont miss us !!!!!!!

We start at Folly Beach Pier at 9 am.

Same starting point when I rode across the United States for Medical Marijuana Patients .

More info
ken_locke2001@yahoo.com

Support Ron Paul Hope for America 08

this has really been an amusing afternoon, haven't been here for a while, I enjoy reading all the blogs, i must admit sometimes i want to jump right in and get in the fight, alot of good ideas here and some not so good, but just the same everyone is fighting the GOOD FIGHT, America is a great Country and good people, somehow we have gone astray, think about all of our ancestors how they wanted to make this the GREATEST PLACE ON EARTH, well i believe we have let them down, we are selfserving, greedy and want to blame poor people for everything that goes wrong, when in fact the only Welfare in this Country now goes to the Corporations, i work for one i should know. I wish these couple of guys here fighting all day, over the economy would just call each other on the phone and talk, being open to alot of reactionary bull%#%*, i like all these PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS fighting like little school children, your gut feeling can usually direct u to where u are at in the Country, I would like to see our COUNTRY DO A 360, we need to employ a whole new host of Congressmen and women. the House needs cleaning and i think it is time for all REPUBLICANS TO BE REPLACED. so if it is Hillary or Edwards so be it..myself I am for John Edwards, i see it as anytime they all hate him ....then they really fear him......that's great

I encourage everyone reading this to watch the AFL-CIO debate tonight live on MSNBC, the working people needs a voice in the WHITE HOUSE and John and Elizabeth Edwards are the only thing standing between us and another 4-8 years of Republican rule, whether you all want to admit it or not- old white people vote here in the South still vote and an overwhelming majority will not vote for Hillary or Obama, like it or not, think about how WE CAN WIN next November, and Edwards is our ONLY shot, and it will be four years before we get another shot! I know the man and his family, he was born here in Seneca and even Republicans will cross over and vote for John Edwards, if the other side selects a pro-choice or former pro-choice candidate, but take it to the bank, they will not even consider it if its a Clinton or an Obama. Edwards all the way!!!

John Edwards is intellectually an order of magnitude higher than the opposing candidates in either party. He addresses the issues with complete well thought out strategies which no other candidate from either side has been able to do. It's no wonder he is angry. He debates the issues while his opponents get hung up on trivialties just to create a sound byte.

Mark in Austin writes
"So if a wind generator converts potential energy from the atmosphere to kinetic energy
that should leave less energy in the atmosphere. Do the downwind mills produce less? Is the effect de minimus?"

Yes. Yes.

Actually windmills affect the microclimate more than the macro climate. Erecting a field of windmills will have immeasurable effect on how a front moves through an area, for instance, or even the 'force' of the wind felt on the downwind side. Where windmills _do_ have a measurable impact is in the immediate downstream areas; I don't fully recall the details, but large windmills can disrupt things like dew accumulation overnight by disturbing air that might otherwise be still. The interference of the blades can also direct the breeze closer to ground level, due to the vortexes that are generated off the blade tips, if I recall correctly.

When will you political press and TV pundits get off your fixation with style? It's old. I was at Yearly Kos, on the picket line when Edwards arrived where I spoke to him, at the forum where I listened from a second row table, and at the break out in the front row (lady wearing pink shirt). I was close enough to get a read on John Edwards and he is not the person you depict here. Perhaps no one outside of a TV soap opera is.

I read this man as confident, cheerful, warm, witty, very quick, passionate on the issues that drive his campaign, of course, as are Dodd, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, and Biden. Richardson and Clinton aren't in that category but have other virtues and reasons for running.

Have you pundits learned nothing from blogger questions and YouTube questioners? There is a lot to learn and to teach about these candidates and you fail your profession where you settle for pre-made political stories gleaned from soap opera.

bsimon wrote:

Lynn asks
"When you gonna write about the 'trial lawyer' Thompson and his wife's mysterous past they won't answer questions about, CC?"

Perhaps that will hit the presses when DA Branch actually announces he's running. Last I heard, he's waffled again & pushed the surprise back another couple months.

the main reason why fred thompson has not announced his candidacy is because he gets
MORE FACE TIME on the TV through his role in LAW AND ORDER SERIES and HE is paid for it! the rest of the republican candidates do not. when he announces, if he does, then he will be restricted to the amount of time he can be in Americas face through equal exposure rules.
really, who cares about a "tart wife".
another good lawyer.

His network helped defeat Gore and Kerry - and led the charge to impeach her husband. And now - she's in bed with him!
Ahhh...the addiction to Power.

Hillary/Murdoch08

Way to go Edwards! just ignore the new DC insider mantra that {gasp!} Edwards is angry that Broder began last week. Apparently, all those DC insiders are quite happy with the way things are going - for them.

Mark in Austin - Similarly, I just returned from a trip to Europe, a vacation through Holland, Germany and Austria. It was quite an eye opener. Nuclear power plants, smallish ones, everywhere, that generated their electricity. Locks on the Rhine, Main, Danube and canals. Barge traffic full of cars and other products and raw materials. Mile after mile of cranes, construction everywhere, and, in the cities and towns, people shopping and buying, everyone working, no drunks laying around, no unemployment (in Germany, as a whole, around 5%, in Austria 1.8%, and similarly low in Holland). Europe is rebuilding it's entire infrastructure to be energy independent. The trains everywhere run on electricity. In the countryide I saw windmills that produced electricity and pumped irrigation water. Instead of corn, they were growing a plant I cannot recall the name of, that produced biodiesel that 20% of their trucks ran on. It was amazing. For cars, efficient hybrid and diesel cars and taxes ON VEHICLES that made huge pickups and SUV's unaffordable for personal transportation. Buses and trains and boats and trams that were cheap and efficient and everyone used them. Even a small country like Holland had buses, regularly running buses, that ran to the most remote parts of the country. The Rhine and the Danube had been cleaned up so much that salmon runs had returned and people were fishing for them and trout and grayling. Why can't we do that? We will be forced to do it eventually, if we are to survive at all. Eisenhower, one of our great Presidents, had a vision that led to the interstate highway system and sparked the economic boom that made us an economic powerhouse. Now, we are sinking into third world obscurity, our jobs and technology being exported for short term gain. Where is our vision of a future? We have become a nation of self serving special interest groups, everyone hunting for a bargain, looking for that majic lottery ticket or stock that will make us instanrtly wealthy. Wealth is only truly acquired from hard work and cooperation - the Amercian dream. What happened to that dream?

"Anyway, the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket as a sacrificial offering to the altar of Southern racism is ludicrous... particularly after Edwards himself said he doesn't want the votes of people who would vote for him just because he's white."

I've been pondering Gogli's statement all day. And he/she is right. %100. I wish we could tell gop'ers to not be racist. I think that would be like trying to tell them to stop being fascists. Not sure how far it would get.

Some people are un-willing to change and or compromise. The Dem's seem to be the only one's compromising. Not sure what if anythign the r's have compromised on. They are known for, if they don't get their way, walking out on compromise.

The problem with Obama taking the vp roel on an edwards ticket would be, his future would be tied to what edwards does. Not sure if he wants to risk it.

Time will tell. I've been pondering a switch to Edwards. MAybe that's the idea. Maybe he is there to divide the dem vote.

Great point Gogli. I'm teetering on the Obama/Edwards fence. Trying to compromise here with the racist fascsits. :)

What is more important? Change or having it OUR way? I'll do what's best for the country as opposed to what I want. Soemthign the gop will never understand. Choosing country over self. That is why I say youy ar traitors.

JD: Vernors is better. Not sure of the spelling.

JEP: bsimon post 02:44 PM has it about the way I am thinking. Around the middle of June I went over my Electoral College and added Pa. for a total of 309 for Hillary. I have Va. and Fl. as the only southern states I expect her to carry. I have 21 states and DC that I am pretty sure she will win. Iowa is not included, and I am becoming more hopeful since I heard from friends traveling thru there sometime back and told me not to be suprised if Hillary won there, when at the time she was polling third or fourth and now it is a tie. There is still a long way to go, and as we all know, things can change pretty quick.

MikeB - I was watching miles and miles of wind generators as I drove through west Texas Friday and I got to thinking about the conservation of energy.

So if a wind generator converts potential energy from the atmosphere to kinetic energy
that should leave less energy in the atmosphere. Do the downwind mills produce less? Is the effect de minimus?

I know you will think this is simple, but when you are driving through west Texas random thoughts are all you have. I also calculated/guesstimated tip rotational velocity at about 105 mph. Really had to work to entertain myself.

be honest mark. You just voted for perot because he is from texas. Didn't you :)

I know you texans. I know how you operate. close-minded and all.:0

jk. But not really

MikeB - did you ever see my question to you about the physics of wind generators?

JD - I am vaguely aware of studies claiming that the first round of GWB's tax cuts worked but the second did not. I cannot find it on a quick web search. May have been a Federal Reserve Bank multiple regression analysis - the thrust was that the huge deficit [off the books, but real] of the two wars was fueling a "Keynesian" growth spurt, and would have done so no matter what tax policy we pursued.

bsimon, Colin, JD, proud - we all agree that gas taxes should be substantially increased [remember, I voted for Perot and his pie chart that reflected the need for higher gasoline taxes]. We are almost big enough to form our own party.

You prove my point for me JD. Can I power my car on soda or milk? No.

Read the posts again

JD - I just love correcting your factual errors. You neocons keep talkig about gasoline taxes and other taxes and exclaim that it puts an undue burdon on odinary citizens. The, you usally go off about the high cost of feul in Europe. There IS a difference. In Europe, to be sure, gasline is expensive and most of that expense is taxes. Those taxes pay for a mass transit system that take ordinary citizens to an from work. You can travel from one end of Europe to the other on cheap trains, buses and trams. Here, with fuel costs climbing ever closer to European levels, *most* of those feul costs go into the pockets of futures traders and commodities traders and oil company CEO's. The current federal gasoline tax is $0.185 a gallon. Even raising this by ten cents a gallon isn't ging to significantly impact the cost of gasoline and it isn't going to do one thing about building a national mass transit system or even repairing the highways we have now. Gasoline and other fuels are a SECURITY interest to this country. It is a part of our infrastructure that we cannot survive without. Allowing robber barons and investor parasites to monkey with the cost and availability of this essential commodity is simply insane. Remove them from the equation and tax the snot out of gasoline with every dime going to build a national mass transit system and repair and maintain our present crumbing infrastructure. The choice is pretty simple - either we collec the money and do public good with it or the investors and oil company officers collect it and add it to their already bloated (and, usually, offshore) savings.

"Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'... "

I'd much rather talk about this than oil. Oh, wait. They are the same thing. Sorry for my ignorance

ruf, not sure if you were talking to me, I doubt it since I'm no 'gas expert' as you say.

However, the price is determined by the market, plus any taxes. That's it. If you controlled all the means of production and distro of milk, and decided to price at $4, $40, or $400 a gallon, yes that's the price; but because the elasticity of that product is pretty high, people would quickly go to an alternative, and you would sell no milk. So, being rational and wanting to recoup your investment in cows, feed, etc, you would lower the price, until the supply and demand found an equilibrium.

The elasticity of gas is not quite as high; that's why we need a stiffer tax to alter behavior. People will drive roughly as much (and therefore pollute, and keep our dependence on foreign oil) whether gas is $3, $4, or even $5/gallon.

Just an example to drive home the concept; the elasticity of a soft drink brand is extremely high - people will readily switch between Canada Dry and Schwepps ginger ales based on price. The elasticity of, say, heroin is almost non-existent - people will pay virtually any price, if they are consumers of it.

I say we fly around on jetpacks :)

Money doesn't really make the world go round. oil doesn't amke the world go round. How did these gop'ers draw us in a debate about oil. Tricky republicans.

Again, why did the GOP drop gas prices before the 06 elections?

not sure what I meant with "political leaders will have to ensure the various benefits." probably meant "sell the various benefits".

Colin asks
"any ideas on how EITHER political party could possibly sell that idea to the public? Because the ONLY way that ever happens is if it's completely bipartisan, so that both sides are equally blamed by the general population."

You probably have to phase it in & make a strong case for spending the revenue on researching alt fuels and/or conservation technology. Oh yeah, and infrastructure. That's gonna be an easy sell in MN, though I'd rather it were the result of rational consideration, rather than the reflexive action we're going to see.

Back on point - in pushing for a higher gas tax, political leaders will have to ensure the various benefits. There are obvious benefits both environmentally and in national security. A less obvious, but still relevant benefit is economic. Our trade deficit is largely the result of two factors 1) the ever decreasing value of the dollar and 2) the ever increasing price of petroleum. Lower spending on petroleum & you've directly addressed the 2nd and indirectly addressed the first (falling dollar is partially a result of the trade imbalance).

Anyone have other ideas?

And gop. trying to slip something from newt.org in as a REAL poll.

tsst tsst tsst.

Doesn't work here buddy. Try again.

JD - I am not a mean spirited individual and you are taking my criticism of investing out of context. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers thought that the free enterprise system was the engine that would drive this country. Their vision was of thousands of *small* business owners, investing n thier own business. That is why, and they wrote this, they limited corporations to the lifetime and personal management of the business founder and their family. Those laws were changed quite recently, and I am amazed that people don't know that fact. Furthermore, those same Founding Fathers were opposed to banking and wealthy investors using money to control businesses and saw that as a great eveil. They even attempted to outlaw it. Overriding those laws, too, is a very recent "innovation". There is a big difference between a bank or personal loan, to get a busiess started, and what passes fo "investment" today. Short selling, commodities trading, futures, bonds, and similar financial instruments weren;t even legal in the early yars of this country...and for good reason. They are seen as detrimental to the private enterprise system. Large corporate entities have a negative impoact on employment numbers whereas small businesses create jobs. Large corporations manipulate laws (the patient laws are cases in point) to circumvent the original intent of those laws. Thge patent laws were originally envisioned to protect the rights of the investor. A patent *requires* an inventor. Today, however, large corporations require, in advance, that employees assign all rights for any inventions to the corporatioon, even before such inventions exist. Large corporations and investors are the bottom feeders, the parasites that exist upon and feed off the work of the people of this country. They exercise influence over policies only because they buy and sell politcians as if they were commodites. They are a danger and one that we need to get under control, if not exterminate, becase they threaten the very existence of this country and the peace of the world.

I here your arguements, I know know your going to call me a tin-foil hat. Answer my question, you claim to be a gas expert.

How and Why did gas prices go down before the mid-term elections?

Gas's, and any commodity's, only worth is what we give it. I can price milk at $40 a gallon. If I control most or all of the milk in the world I can charge whatever I want. If you want milk you have to pay what I say. Your tax option is fools gold.

Colin- As plans go, this one sounds realistic and progress-oriented to me...
and before anyone calls me a dittohead, I'll just ask - has anyone else come up with something better?

Energy independence battle plan:

1) ensure the viability of our biofuel investments

Apply a floating mandate for the percentage of every gallon of fuel that must be biofuel. Whatever ethanol is left over after the E85 demand has been met must be added to the gasoline.This would give ethanol and other biofuels a guaranteed market and would insulate it from fluctuations in the price of oil.

2)Build ethanol delivery pipeline

One of the largest constraints on the expansion of ethanol as a viable alternative to oil is the ability to ship it to market. We should form a public/private consortium to build pipelines from the ethanol providers to the major cities across this country.

3)Provide federal cellulosic ethanol research grants.

We need to push this technology that has the best near term chance of displacing all of our imported oil. We should provide 5 billion dollars in grants to corporations and universities that are actively trying to clear the last hurdles to the profitable implementation of cellulosic ethanol.

4)The Yario ethanol prize

We should set up the Yario prize for the first company to produce cellulosic ethanol at a price competitive with gasoline when oil is at $40 per barrel. The company must also demonstrate this by building a plant with a 100 million gallon/year capacity and operating it at the prescribed cost level for one year. The prize? 5 billion dollars.

5) Provide federal advanced battery technologies grants.

If we can achieve a plug in hybrid capable of 100 miles per gallon at an affordable price we would dramatically reduce our consumption of liquid transportation fuels in the first place. This one is cheap. The big three claim that a federal grant of $500 million over three years would get the job done.

6) The Yario battery prize

We should set up the Yario prize for the first company to produce a car capable of 100 miles per gallon which can be sold at a profit for 30 thousand dollars or less. Prize: 5 billion dollars.

I believe this battle plan has a very good chance of eliminating all imported oil from the middle east and Venezuela within five years and eliminating all imported oil in ten years. What do you guys think?

http://www.newt.org/forum/topic.asp?fi=20000001&catId=30000004&ti=400001123

Colin, you want my honest opinion? Neither side has the cajones to follow through on a gas tax. An external event may do it for us, however; an Iranian-sponsored nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would send oil to $200 a barrel or more. Or some kind of tsunami, that can be attributed to warming, hammering the East coast.

I would much prefer to capture the rev ourselves, through a tax, but I cannot see ANY set of circumstances where that would happen; Repubs hate raising taxes on principal, and Dems hate passing 'non-progressive' taxes, which this would certainly be.

Don't kid yourself; raising taxes on gas (or anything, for that matter) will retard the economy. It's just that the alternative is worse; greater consumption of a scare resource, with high externalities.

Most of America is angry about the current state of affairs, which is why everyone's approval ratings are so low...Bush, Cheney, Congress.

John Edwards is hated by the political elite in DC...the establishment Democrats, the Republican establishment, and the establishment media, regardless of the fact that he was in the Senate. He is the true outsider in this race.

He has a right to be as outraged as most Americans.

The difference between John Edwards and Howard Dean however, is when Dean looks angry, he really looks angry.

When Edwards is "outraged," his southern manners still shine through.

Interesting that Cillizza didn't point out that distinction between Edwards and Dean. Dean was angry and looked angry. Edwards is angry, but it comes across more as a "FEEL-YOUR-PAIN" anger.

It would serve Edwards well, if the media didn't have an agenda to TEAR HIM DOWN individually.

From the moment that the media lured Barack Obama into the race even though he said in 2004 that he DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE RUNNING IN 2008, it's been "make sure that Edwards doesn't gain any traction" from the media.

And no, Obama didn't give the typical scripted answer that all candidates give when they are leaving the door open for running. He said DIRECTLY, "NO," he would not be a candidate for President in 2008.

What happened? He went on his book tour and the media started saying that HE HAD TO RUN, with Jonathan Alter sitting on Hardball declaring, "HE HAS TO RUN NOW!!! HE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO GENERATE THIS BUZZ AGAIN."

Yeah. I wish the media would stop trying to influence people, and report exactly what Bush is up to for a change. When is Chris Cillizza going to say anything about Bush's signing statements, instead of trying to paint John Edwards as the Howard Dean of 2008, when Barack Obama really is in terms of "PEAKING EARLY," but could possibly implode at the end.

Again, you rtrickle down effect only works if the money is running down. Not staying on the top. This is obvious. It must be a greattime to be gop. Other than all the flak you have to take from us bloggers. Livin gin you republcian districts. Making money off slavery and shipping and recieving overseas. Not getting taxed. Listening to republcian parrots dominating the radio and tv. Must be a great time to be gop. No wonder your so clueless when you try and converse on-line. We're living on two differant planets. the gop world, and everybody else.

JD & Proud -- glad to hear you both support a gas tax increase. Now, any ideas on how EITHER political party could possibly sell that idea to the public? Because the ONLY way that ever happens is if it's completely bipartisan, so that both sides are equally blamed by the general population.

bsimon -- as usual, it sounds like you were ahead of your time on gas prices. Nonetheless, I'd ask you as well how politicians should sell a gas-tax increase. Honestly, I'm at a loss on this one.

"I'm called some kind of long-haired hippy liberal."

bsimon, you're OK in my book :-)

"I think we'll all be better off if we can put an end to these problems. I think we can put more of our own people to work, contributing to the economy, rather than letting people remain trapped in a cycle of poverty that costs us all money - on welfare, law enforcement and prisons. Perhaps you see that as liberal. I see it as sound investment - spending money now in order to save money later. "

i HEAR YOU SIMON. iT'S ABOUT WHERE WE WANT OUR MONEY TO GO. dOES IT GO BACK TO AMERICANS. dOES IT GO INTO INFASTRUcture and back to AMericans. Or does it go to the top %5 and overseas. "Liberals" say it's our money give it to use. The GOP says give it to the top %5 and let them filter it down. "Trust us". As bush continues to say. Trust only works it you don't take advantage of that trust. The gop has done this

Edwards gets it, and that is big trouble for those who are used to "owning" it...US...the U.S.

Reading these comments, I wonder how many were made by those who stand to continue reaping profits off purchased policy that corp dollars buy why the rest of the nation sits around wondering why and how these insane laws clearly opposed the prosperity of PEOPLE continue to be passed....

Anyone who lashes out should be questioned....what do they fear and why....

Edwards is moving an agenda for people...and that is power that can't be bought.

I am angry with the "we promise" of years gone by that turn out to be good intentions but blocked by dollars that elected folks..

Senator Clinton has the most purchased support and is a no go for this dem...

Edwards is my guy...and when people do some research get informed outside of the mainstream paid for propaganda we hear on the news most days...he will be their guy too...

JD: I couldn't possibly care less where you claim to work, how many degrees you claime have, or where you claim to live, since you can't prove any of what you say is true. You seem naive in that respect. Why anyone else would care is beyond me.

MikeB writes
"I have jo repect for anyone who makes thier money as an investor, someone who by definition mkaes their money at the expense of others."

That's a pretty simpleminded way of looking at investment. If I want to open a coffee shop & hit up my family and friends to invest in the venture, they expect to get some return on their money. If the coffee shop is a success, I will make a living and I will be able to compensate the other owners - investors, hopefully with either a divident, or in repaying their money, with interest. Of course, if the shop goes bust, they're out of luck. In other words, I'm supposed to compensate them for the risk they take in giving me money.

MikeB, not sure why I keep responding to you, you seem like such a mean spirited and self-hating individual. But I think I'll try one more time:

what you see as an evil investor, making money off of the sweat of others; I see as someone putting capital to work, allowing others to pursue their dreams of starting a business, buying house, a car, or whatever. When someone 'invests' their money in a bank, stock, or bond, do you think it just goes into a mattress somewhere? No, it gets loaned out to the middle class folks you claim to love, so they can do things that will grow the economy (hopefully, assuming the venture goes well).

PS I actually work for a living, for a non-profit in fact, that deals with and oversees government. Of course, according to Loudoun, I'm not supposed to say that, since that's bragging somehow...even though I was asked the question...

well blow me down. The Newt is making headway.

JD says " there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas."

proudtobeGOP responds
"I wholeheartedly agree."

Funny thing guys, you both like to call me a liberal, but I've thought that gas is cheap for years. Still think so, despite $3/gal gas. Yet every time I've mentioned a gas tax in order to promote alternatives - or conservation - I'm called some kind of long-haired hippy liberal.

thanks, proudtobe. Too bad that so many people have so much hate inside them that they cannot have a reasonable discussion about almost any issue. How awful it must be for their spouses.

Samuelson and Kraut have both done good workups in this paper on why, without a real gas tax, one that hurts enough to alter behavior, nothing serious will get ever get done, on either global warming or foreign dependence on oil.

JD demands "respect" but what he fails to understand is that the politcies and politics he advocates undermines the very existence of this country. I have jo repect for anyone who makes thier money as an investor, someone who by definition mkaes their money at the expense of others. Just look at oil futures, as an example. These parasites bid the cost up and walk away with a pile of cash, leaving everyone else to pay the bills. Same for motgages. The subprime mess wouldn't exist if investors hadn't gotten in there and manipulated prices up to where actual people, who need a home to live in, couldn't afford homes any longer...or ended up buying a home that was bound to end up loosing value once the maret the investors created collapsed. Now, Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had these people around, too, and did everything in their power to curtail them. They left advice for us rto follow, to beware of them. But, like cockroaches everywhere, they bred in the dark places and came scuttling out to wreck ruin when we weren't looking. Well, JD, we ARE looking now. Get a genuine job, work for a living. Either that or starve in the new world order that is coming a lot sooner than you think.

JD says " there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas. It would reduce our dependency on a region of the world that wants to kill Americans, plus reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plus incentivize (more than all the federal spending ever could) alternative sources of energy and better gas mileage."

I wholeheartedly agree. After positing just such a plan last week, many left-leaning elitists quickly laughed at my willingness to pay more at the pump, despite the many valid reasons which you so correctly listed. It really boils down to a Cost vs. benefit argument. Incentivization is they key to becoming energy independant as a nation.

John Edwards is the Howard Dean of this race. Let's watch him similarly implode.

JD writes
"You and Colin are liberals, I know, but at least you are respectful."

I am liberal in the way of 'Liberal Arts' rather than Liberal politics.

Politically, I think gov't should be as small & unintrusive as possible. But I also think gov't should invest in its citizenry such that everyone has a chance to better themselves. That means that if a child's parents aren't putting food on the table, or getting that kid healthcare, gov't should ensure that the kid has access to food, healthcare & a decent education. The essential flaw in our system is that, in attempting to hold adults accountable, we inadvertently penalize their children. I think our prisons are overfull because of this failure - hungry & sick kids don't learn well in school - they tend to disrupt the classroom environment, which penalizes not only themselves but their peers.

I think we'll all be better off if we can put an end to these problems. I think we can put more of our own people to work, contributing to the economy, rather than letting people remain trapped in a cycle of poverty that costs us all money - on welfare, law enforcement and prisons. Perhaps you see that as liberal. I see it as sound investment - spending money now in order to save money later.

Conservatives claim to be fiscally prudent. I tend to find them short-sighted and, to borrow a phrase, penny wise but pound foolish.

I know it's superficial, but I just can't get past Edward's hair issues. Between that and him applauding his kid making fun of another kid for buying his shoes at Wal-Mart, I'm afraid he's just not going to make it as an advocate for the poor.

JD, There are givers and ther are takers. You are simply and totally a taker, a greedy parasite. Fortunately, you are about to rendered exinct.

One more thing: there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas. It would reduce our dependency on a region of the world that wants to kill Americans, plus reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plus incentivize (more than all the federal spending ever could) alternative sources of energy and better gas mileage.

Raising that tax would control for the externality (Loudoun, look it up) of the costs of maintaining current usage of oil, in lives, money, pollution, etc.

Mike: "As for MikeB, I'd say my 2 degrees in econ are enough."

You'd think after the internet being around for so long that everyone would know that bragging about one's personal credentials would make one look like an idiot. I guess you'd be wrong.

bsimon: exactly. There's really no way to determine where we are on that curve at any given point...until receipts go *down* after lowering rates, which they haven't yet. I'd like to think that lowering marginal rates provides incentives that grow the economy, plus do other good things (attract overseas capital and smart people, utilize market forces instead of gov political agendas to allocate scarce resources, etc).

I'm willing, honestly I am, to hear an argument that taxes are too low. But the Dems are too afraid to make it, and the emotional types on this blog just scream and yell. Nobody uses facts.

You and Colin are liberals, I know, but at least you are respectful. As is Mark (well, for an attorney :-). Plus a few others.

As for MikeB, I'd say my 2 degrees in econ are enough. How many you have? And did you have a cite or other proof about your claim that the increased tax rev is mostly on the backs of the middle class? Or was that a DailyKos kind of quote?

MikeB: JD, like a typical con, can't see more than a few inches in front of his face. That's why he thinks a short-term increase in revenues is great, even though the long-term LOSS in revenues is much greater.

JD writes
"Unless of course, you have some evidence that lowering tax rates actually lowers revenue? No? Didn't think so."

Doesn't the Laffer Curve you posted earlier show that lowering the tax rate lowers revenue? What conservatives typically do is pull out the Laffer Curve & assume that we must still be on the high side of the curve, therefore taxes must be lowered. They never seem to ask if we've perhaps gone past the sweet spot & started travelling too far down the curve. Why do you suppose that is?

mad at Klobuchar writes
"I thought you all might be interested in the following information about the infamous 2005 highway bill... The state of Minnesota received 147 earmarks from the bill worth $495 million according to Taxpayers for Common Sense."

Uh, sir, may I remind you that firstly, Sen Klobuchar was not in the federal government in 2005, and secondly, Congress was controlled by the GOP? Perhaps your rage should instead be directed at Senator Coleman (R-MN) - who was in Congress in 2005, unlike Sen Klobuchar. She holds the seat formerly held by Mark Dayton (D-MN), who is no longer in public office.

JD, as you are wll aware, those receipts are due almost entirely to the alternative minimum tax and were collected from the Middle Class. Again, the wealthest 5% and corporate revenues ARE DOWN and have been FALLING since Bush took office. I await your apologies. Better yet, go back to school and study economics.

Obama can get more done in the Senate than as VP, so I don't think he would even consider quitting to become VP.

Anyway, the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket as a sacrificial offering to the altar of Southern racism is ludicrous... particularly after Edwards himself said he doesn't want the votes of people who would vote for him just because he's white.

Edwards/Obama just isn't happening, it's a ridiculous idea.

Loudoun, refer to the chart I just referenced. I assume that you also will now realize the error of your ways.

Unless of course, you have some evidence that lowering tax rates actually lowers revenue? No? Didn't think so.

MikeB said, " Back in the Reagan years it was true. But the bean counters have figured out how to use it as a loophole. Today...and go tax receipts for 2004, 2005, 2006....revenues are down."

OK MikeB, one more time. Please refer to this chart from the US Treasury

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh's site, or Fox News site, etc. This is the US Government. Or are you with Chris Fox and assume that there's a conspiracy afoot?

I will accept your apology now.

LOL JD posts a link to the discredited voodoo economics supply-side LAFFER Curve as support for his idiotic post?

Now I'm really LAFFIN'!

JD. Just chock it up to class warfare. That's pretty much what you "free traitors" do when people worry about their jobs, about the future of this country, and about economic sanity.

As for your claim that revenues have risen when marginal tax rates were lowered, it's a crock. Back in the Reagan years it was true. But the bean counters have figured out how to use it as a loophole. Today...and go tax receipts for 2004, 2005, 2006....revenues are down. Many firms have "offshored" their headquarters, usually not much more than a Post Office Box, in Dubai or the Caymen Islands, and reduce the taxes they ought to paying by 100% (and sometimes...more!). Your whoole trickle down economic model is bankrupt and is harmful to this country. And, THAT, if you think it class warfare, is not something I will apologize for. Your days of wringing money from the poor and Middle Class aer...OVER and done with. Move to India. You aren't wanted, you aren't needed, and you don't belong here.

I thought you all might be interested in the following information about the infamous 2005 highway bill. The bill contained more than 6,300 earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, at a cost of $24.2 billion.

The state of Minnesota received 147 earmarks from the bill worth $495 million according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Included in the list of Minnesota transportation earmarks are "high priority" projects like $1.578 million for bicycle trail construction, $1.3 million for a new visitor's center, and $1.52 for streetscape construction.

The inclusion of these seemingly unnecessary earmarks begs the question: if these are designated by Congress as a "high priority," then what does a low priority look like?

Loudoun Voter, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

I've shown that revenues have risen when the marginal rates were lowered. Obviously there is a bottom limit to that. Duh. I never said that it should go to 0%; you should have inferred that from my response.

If you are suggesting that the rates now are the optimum rates, then you must be against letting the tax cuts expire in 2010?

MikeB, thanks for the insults. Appreciated. Did you actually have a fact-based argument, or are you just here for name-calling and class warfare?

vahawk, Heritage is a fiscally conservative non-profit. That's why I said, if you doubt their source (OMB), then you show me your numbers and cites.

Sorry for the spelling errors. CC is messing with me. Trying to discredit. Frickin republicans

I notice that the Post is STILL censoring news about Edwards. Today he criticised Clinton's push for NAFTA, calling it an ill thought out and bad piece of legislation that has cost this country millions of jobs. You can actually read this news over on CNN, which evidently is actually trying to report this election, rather than corinate Ms. Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/edwards.clinton.trade.ap/index.html

And, Chris, tell your editorial staff to to at least try and play this election out on a level field. You already censored the Kos convention remarks about Clinton's being called the Senator from India, the criticism of her working with outsourcing firms, the millions of dollars in campaign donations she received from INDIAN firms interested in sending more H1-B visa'd workers here. Just STOP IT!! Report the NEWS!!!!! No more press censorship.

JEP writes
"I've been touting the Edwards/Obama ticket for a long time now."

That's not very appealing, to this independant. For starters, Edwards is lighter weight than Obama. Secondly, if we presume for a moment that your assessment of Southern voters is accurate (of which I'm not convinced), I don't think Edwards can overcome the (alleged) aversion to Obama. For one thing, Edwards likely wouldn't have won reelection to his seat, had he run for a 2nd term. At least that's the conventional wisdom. If its true, an Edwards/Obama ticket is doomed.

Generally, I don't see what Edwards brings to the table. Yes, he has passion, but how's he directed it? Mostly towards running for President - 2/3 into his only term as Senator he ran for President, getting the VP nomination. Since then he's continued running - mostly by getting out & doing the speaking/fundraising circuit. Is this all we require of a Presidential candidate now? 4 years in the Senate and 4 years running for higher office?

I hear that. I support Obama. I agree with almost everything he has said thusfar. My only issue with his is the experiance "problem". I think it will be good to get a fresh face with a fresh perspective in there. I am aware that many do not share these views and are scared of change. I have hoped the country would move past his percieved inexperiance. I had hoped Gore would have stepped up and ran and Obama would be a natural fit, based on the ideologes. Doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Like I said I am starting to warm to edwards. If Obama takes his vp role, I agree he would be a prime candidate in 4 or eight years. I also agree with your sothern white statement. Your making me re-think me stance. There is a Edwards office aroudn the corner from my house. Your making me say" forget obama" and go in there :)

Great points. Hold this site down withthose points. The zouk's and proid's and JD's will look like fools if they is another poster like you on here. Hold it down. :)

Rufus;

My brother suffered the same sad fate at the hands of hypocrites who call themselves Christians, he is bitter towards Christ because of what some very evil people did in Jesus' name.

Deaf sheep (evangelicals) following blind goats (televangelists) owned by hungry wolves (neoconservatives).

Just how many Monica Goodlings does it take to have compassion on one unmarried pregnant girl? Apparently, Ms. Goodling refused to let the office have a baby shower for an unmarried mother...

Compassionate conservatives?

HYPOCRITES!

Rufus;

I've been touting the Edwards/Obama ticket for a long time now.

With an eventual goal of Obama in 2016.

I have said right on this blog, if Obama could become our VP to the world, and spend his time travelling and repairing the damage Cheney has done, by the time he's finished, he would be one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in history.

And we would probably be loved and respected around the world again, Barrack's eloquence, class and compassion would surely assuage Cheney's crass, crude, cruel legacy.

bsimon: JD apparently knows the exact percentage rate -- probably to a few thousandths of a point or so -- that will maximize federal income tax revenue. Isn't that amazing? He is really something, huh? We're not worthy.

"By their fruits ye shall know them...""

I agree. I've been trying to get my grilfreind to become a christian. She told me she can't because how bad she whas treated at church. How thye turned their heads because "she wasn't one of them." Them not knowing that we are all one in God's eyes. What a croke.

I've been trying to tell her that these people are false christians. They are not christians at all in fact. They merly like the way being labeled a "christian, makes them feel about themselves. Puts them on a pedestal. Any real chrsitian knows this is not the goal.

A true christian follows the laws of the christ. The CBN, bush and the "christian" right is leading their sheep to oblivion. Real christians need to stand up agaisnt all these transgressions agaisnt us.

JD: "

Loudoun Voter - how about a tax rate of 100% That would maximize federal rev, right?

Just to continue your theme of using an extreme value to knock down a strawman..."

Um nice try, but I have never made the argument relating tax increases to revenue increases. So try again and explain why a tax cut to zero would not maximize federal revenue as your argument clearly indicates?

forgot to sign that last one, too...

I'm pretty much sold on a Edwards ticket, and I've posted before that in some ways, Gore has transcended this whole mess, and has influence above and beyond a politician's limitations.

No offense to Edwards, Obama or Clinton, but they do not rise to that level.

Curious, though, that I no longer consider the office of the President of the U.S. the highest calling, or the nexus of power and influence...

More and more, that nexus is becoming a public realm, and the blogs represent the public's first real foothold on it.

Sometimes, it doesn't take high office to have great influence.

Ask Jane Hamscher and Josh Marshall, they know what I mean.

"Second job? She already works 6 days a week!"

No, Mike, just let her take that second job, and then her kids can run around on the streets and join a gang!

Who needs Moms or Dads when you got gangs...

so I'm aausming you would be all over a Edwards Obama ticket, JEP. Me too. But the question becomes who would you rather have? A edwards obama ticket, or an obama gore ticket?

Rufus;

The C in CBN is using the Lord's name in vain.

"By their fruits ye shall know them..."

A lot of Christians are waking up to the war/torture/corruption Republican Party realities they have been blinded to, and they aren't falling for the gay marriage/ abortion red herrings any more.

Sometimes, the Truth just simply prevails, and truly spiritual people have no choice but to recognize it.

Lyle, my only real issue with Hillary and Obama is southern white males. There's just too much at stake to gamble on a sea-change in the Southern good-old-boy ranks.

Other than that concern, I would and will support them very gladly, should they prevail in the primaries.

I discovered a bit late (I was an early Deaniac) Edwards is a true populist, and has been since BEFORE 2004, if Dean was Edwards, and Kerry's DLC machine hadn't purchased the nomination, Bin Laden might actually be dead right now.

And Iraq would still just be a nuisance and a threat, not a world-class historical disaster of unprecedented cost and proportions.

With Edwards, the Southern Vote issue is not nearly as complex, he's "one of em". Not in ideology, but ideology has never been the real issue to the crackers. If it looks like a white male, smells like a white male and talks like a white male (especially with a southern drawl) they might just vote for it...

And that would guarantee a Democratic victory. Take those votes away, or worse yet, move them over to the R's, it could go much differently.

I admit, Hillary's corporate creds don't scare me as much as some, because I would guess she's perfectly capable of taking money from some of these creeps, then denying them their share of the spoils.

"Vast rightwing crybabies", after that.

I still wish Obama would quit the cigarette habit...

If Fox and their people are public enemy number one.

The Heritage Group is number two.

The CBN is three.

In terms of republican propoganda clouding any real political growth and dialogue amonst their constituacy.

I tried to get the CBN to start airing christian teches again and stop spouting republicna propoganda. No avail

Togledites like JD keep blathering about taxes and their trickle down theory of economics. Now, no one who cares to read history will deny that the trickle down economic model actually worked under Reagan. The problem is, people LEARN...especially corporations and investors. What once upon a time provided jobs and economic growth, is now a tool used by bussineses to avoid paying taxes, to maximize profits, and to take advantage of workers. It no longer does what it was supposed to do. Scrap it!

As for taxes, we live in a country with an infrastructure. That infrastructure costs money. That includes things like highways and bridges, an electrical grid, cellure and RF spectrums, schools, police, fire, and medical assistance. All of the things that set us apart from India or Somalia. I suppose the JD's of this country would have people selling organs to provide foo for their children. Likewise, he is the sort of self serving twit, like Romny, who is so clueless about that working waitress, trying to provide medical care for her sick children, that he doesn't see the problem ---- wages and tips: $400 a week (max), food for herself and two children: $150 a week (min), rent: $800 a month, medical insurance $1000 a month. Oops, not enough money. Second job? She already works 6 days a week! Even corporations are starting to see the problem. Most are self insured, bt with medical costs going up an average of 15% a year (And, that is your fault, too. You wont allow the government to negotiate with providors and vendors for the lowest cost drugs, equipment, and services.) , they are going broke providing medical insurance for employees and retirees. So they, too, are hollering for "relief". Toyota located their new hybrid assembly plant in Canada over uncontrolled medical costs. Without universal medical insurance, the United States is an economic backwater with no future.

"Trickle-down, supply side economics has become the Sysiphus Stoneof modern economics."

I agree. Trickle down economics only works if the money is being trickled down and not horded.

JD writes, directed at JEP
"Are you suggesting that times have evolved, economically speaking, and the past is not prologue? OK, maybe I can buy that, but without clear evidence to suggest the contrary, isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?"

Well, if we're going on past experience, should we assume that a tax cut will always boost the economy, or should we only conclude that cutting tax rates from 70% to 35% (making up numbers here) will boost the economy? Surely at some point cutting the tax rate will no longer have an appreciable and/or positive impact on the economy.

The Heritage Group is a far right-wing organization that will bend numbers so they go along with their theories.

Bring some numbers from a non-biased organization and people might actually believe.

I fell you JEP. Thanks for the clarification. On point analisys, by the way

"Forward Into Battle
With The Wall Street Journal and a new business network, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes plan their next move: all-out war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20123487/site/newsweek/

Play time is over. This is not a game. This is a verbal battle of ideas. And the gop ideas of " Iknow you are but what am I" are somehow winning. It is a verbal battle and somehow barney romper room tactics are winning Albert Einstein's. I blame fox for destroying the media and REAL journalism

Rufus;

In terms of Fox, we are on the same page. Their perversion of the whole concept of The 4th Estate (fair and balanced?) was instrumental in the "some of the people all of the time" equation.

I have nothing but contempt for them.

But compared to their delusional years imagining they were the Lords of FatBush, Hannity and O'Rielly (the whole cast, too, but those two in particular) have really been slapped down by history's latest round of harsh reality.

They will never humble themselves to admit it, but their imaginary powers are now relegated to the trash-bin of history, and only their delusions, the brainwashed Bushies, and Roger Ailes sustain them.

The vast majority consider them a joke.

That was my point, maybe I should have been more clear.

JEP: You are correct again, Hillary is and has been my favorite all along. Rasmussen has quite a good story today about polling, although he tends to favor repubs by about 3 [three] % above others, he is quite good. I like your comment about Fox news, I try and watch all the outlets to get a wide variety of views, and Fox has only one, not like the others, that sets them apart.

"isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?"

Only if the causes and effects remain the sdame, and that just isn't true.

JD, the whole"trickle-down" fiasco just illustrates what I mean.

The middle class is just now stretching it's new consumer-class legs.

It may be hard for the supply siders to admit it, but unless you empower the middle class with higher wages (not easy credit), the economy will always be subject to precipitous declines followed by long, struggling climbs.

Trickle-down, supply side economics has become the Sysiphus Stoneof modern economics.

GIVE THE MIDDLE CLASS A HEALTHY PAY RAISE AND THEY WILL SPEND IT!

And thatmakes the rich richer, and could eventually serve to eliminate the poverty class.

But as long as pour commonwealth is pooled up into those billiojn dollar bank accounts, it just can't grow the sway you all wish it would as you roll your archiac, supply-side economic sysiphus stone back up the mountain again.

Give the middle class a living wage, and the economy will explode, and create a free-market that is literally a perpetual mtion economic engine, which, once loosed from the constraints of voodoo economics, will enrich the entire world,not just the wealthy.

Loudoun Voter - how about a tax rate of 100% That would maximize federal rev, right?

Just to continue your theme of using an extreme value to knock down a strawman...

JEP: Whenever some tool tells you that tax cuts always lead to more revenue, ask them if they therefore agree that the tax rate should be immediately cut to zero.

"For the rest of the nation, they are an impotent joke, especially Hannity and O'Reilly. When you have such high ratings, you might expect a varied audience."

tHEY MAY BE A JOKE jep, and I agree with almost everythign you said. But they are still public enemy number one. O'Reilly has succfeded in silencing many people. Fox has succeded in turn cnn msnbc and the main stream media right. They may be a joke but this joke is not to be taken lightly. They may be a joke but they still have pull. Like bush, getting his illegal wiretap some credibility by the dems signing on. These people may be jokes but these jokers are gettign results.

It's not time to laugh at Fox. It's time to be angered and get them off the air. No idsrepesct indended.

NonP, not sure why you think that's Guiliani-speak; I'm just pointing out facts. Here's one chart that shows the correlation between tax cuts and increased rev:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

I'm sure there are many other sources out there, if you don't trust Heritage.

JEP, while I love your skill with the language ('fiscal high-waders'), I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that times have evolved, economically speaking, and the past is not prologue? OK, maybe I can buy that, but without clear evidence to suggest the contrary, isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?

Colin, as one of the few on this site whose opinion I respect, I appreciate your comments. You're guess is correct, the real problem is runaway spending; and it's only going to get worse, both because of dem control of both Congress and the WH in 08, and because of the crushing entitlements to seniors.

Anon, as for your spelling issues....post a name or initials and we can have a chat. Otherwise, pipe down, adults talking here.

Hey, BSimon, it was just an observatin I made once, and still wonder about it...

Actually, back in my college days (early 70's) I won a bet when I played "Born To Be Wild" on a line-up of beer bottle at various stages of fullness...

No brag, just fact...

"People, who want Bush policies to be continued, should pick Hillary Clinton, people, who want radical changes, should pick Obama."

Golly, according to that mmodel, wouldn't Edwards actually seem "normal?"

Too much of a simplification, though, your lines are much too well-defined, all three share a great many similar opinions, but we are now ddown to parsing their differences, not their similarities.

Politics.

JEP notes
"made me wonder if the volume of air inside a flute playing middle c (or any note) is the same as the volume of air in a clarinet of an oboe playing the same note."

You are far outside my realm of knowledge. My experience with wind instruments starts & finishes with varying the volume of beer in a bottle.

This just in from Media Matters;
"During the month of July, Fox's "business news" anchor devoted nine segments to bashing John Edwards. He paid more attention to Edwards than to any other candidate, Democratic or Republican."

When Fox News is so scared of one candidate, it actully serves as an endorsement.

They are trying to create a "Dean Scream" millieuaround Edwards, but only the 25% who still support Bush actually believe it any more. And that is the sun of Fox News' influence.

For the rest of the nation, they are an impotent joke, especially Hannity and O'Reilly. When you have such high ratings, you might expect a varied audience.

Not so Fox, Bush's 25% represents their audience, right down to the % sign.

So they go on, deluding themselves they have influence, when all they are doing is "fooling some of the people all of the time."

But, I do admit, it is a very loyal "some of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately for the rest of us who must suffer due to their ignorance.

Almost $500 billion -- and doesn't include Iraq and Aghanistan. Incredible.

'The House early yesterday approved modest changes to President Bush's record Pentagon budget proposal, but Democrats signaled plans to resume a more contentious debate over the Iraq war after the August recess.

The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395 to 13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing.

The House early yesterday approved modest changes to President Bush's record Pentagon budget proposal, but Democrats signaled plans to resume a more contentious debate over the Iraq war after the August recess.

The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395 to 13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing.

The measure does not include Bush's 2008 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bsimon;

we both read the same geographic article, I was absolutely fascinated by that observation about the Fnote emanating from a supernova.

Funniest thought popped into my mind after I read that, made me wonder if the volume of air inside a flute playing middle c (or any note) is the same as the volume of air in a clarinet of an oboe playing the same note.

(...my wife is in a woodwind trio)

Someone has probably formulated that calculation sometime in the past, but I haven't found it yet.

"What she we do"

What should we do rather

"all ameicans should be angry, but i hate it when the dems argue with each other. put that aside for now and concentrate on knocking the neo-cons, who will follow bush to the very end.let's get them all out, now."

The dems have to agrue with each other. You got hillary and a portion of dems standing pat with bush. You got a large prtion wanting to pull out. Their are a lot of options. To not discussion and or argue destroys our process. If you don't want tooth and nail fighting in politics, you are in the wrong country. The stakes are to big to not fight and argue. Espiecally with hillary going the route she's going. She is the perceived front runner? Did you knwo the dems ok bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping over the weekend? Should we not be angry about that? What she we do. Sit here queitly and wait? Not me.

JD
Riddle me this...

When, in history, did the middle class replace the wealthy class as the consumer class? And, another step back, when did the wealthy class replace the royals as the consumer class.

Economies evolve.

Your models apparently don't.

Expertise is useless when it becomes arcane.

"serious disagreement among economist over the proposition that tax-cuts create revenue."

When Kennedy "did it" the economy was ripe for just such a tax-cut.

But while times have changed, apparently the models didn't.

Economies evolve, just like the societies that spawn them. Someday, the economists need to realize that and reconsider thier models from time to time.

Here's an analogy everyone will understand...If you keep putting the same clothes on your children as they grow up, those pants eventually don't fit.

You conservative economists are all wearing fiscal high-waders from the 60's.

all ameicans should be angry, but i hate it when the dems argue with each other. put that aside for now and concentrate on knocking the neo-cons, who will follow bush to the very end.let's get them all out, now.

Lylepink, I thought you were a Clinton supporter?

anon says
"New York - The economy is losing its umph as summer winds to a close."

There was an article in yesterday's NYT in the business section on the way inflation statistics are calculated. The author argued that because core inflation numbers don't include non-durable goods like food & fuel (to try to limit volatility), but those are non-discretionary purchases, so core CPI & core CPE (did I get that acronym right?) under report inflation. I don't recall all the details, but the author made a compelling point.

JD -- I gather you're a supply-sider, which is fine I suppose, but at the very least I think you have to concede that there is very serious disagreement among economist over the proposition that tax-cuts create revenue. Greenspan, for one, seemed to think that that assumption was a recipe for creating structural deficits - b/c it assumes you can continue to increase spending while reducing tax rates.

As far as your deficit as a % of the GDP, are you really arguing that we're in good shape b/c our current deficits are historically smaller than when we were in severe financial recessions and/or in the middle of the last world war? B/c I'm not sure that's actually a sign of financial health. Sort of like a family bragging that they're current debts aren't NEARLY as bas as the last time they declared bankruptcy...

All of this is really an aside though, b/c I'm fine with philosophical arguments favoring more tax cuts. I'd just like to have a rational argument where people get to decide whether/how many government programs they're willing ot have cut to pay for those tax cuts. As long as that debate is honest, I will happily abide by the results.

forgot to sign that last post...

JD, you never even tried to answer my comment.

You demand stats?

Go find a wartime era whern taxes got CUT for the wealthy like Bush did.

Then come back here with the proof of it.

Don't be so self-righteous, Mr. Spelling bee, you don't correct people's typos on the blogs, anyone who's blogged more than a couple times knows you can't judge a person's post by the typos they make on the blogs.

That's one of the true indicators of blog fluency,that you NEVER assume to correct a typo, it just makes all of us former speling champions laugh out loud.

"OT, but anyone here know how F-major relates to supernovas?"

Hmmm... Nat'l Geographic had an article on supernovas a month or two ago... Is that the note emitted by an exploding star - if we were able to hear it through the vacuum of space?

JEP: I tend to agree with you on most things with Edwards being at least one exception. I have thought for a long time he was on a downhill slide. A few weeks ago I got a e-mail from friends traveling through Iowa and they said to not be suprised when the change started showing in the polls, and another quite revealing observation I will not mention at this time. This anger thing is not new to a losing campaign, and doesn't play very well with some folks, but in reality most of the country is "Mad as hell" about this Administration.

New York - The economy is losing its umph as summer winds to a close.

For one, it's looking as if the downturn in housing is spreading to other parts of the economy. Investors, watching this happen, are becoming increasingly nervous and more selective with their loans.

The tightening of credit standards is taking place at a time when trends in consumer spending and the labor market are taking a downturn.

Car and truck sales are slowiing, there's a weakening recreational boat market, and slowing domestic sales of Harley-Davidson motorcycles. It's also spreading to freight haulers who are reporting weaker volumes. Caterpillar is reporting weaker domestic sales because of a slowdown in construction, and ad revenue is down for newspapers in part because of diminished real estate advertising.

"Everyone hates traffic congestion, but how do we fix it. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!!"

That's a good point, vahawk. I'm from San Jose, since moved out. The number one problem in people's lives, it was polled, is traffic there. For all the hate the bay area gets from the rest of the country. Their problem is not money. It's not crime. It's over population and traffic. California has, Last time I checked, the 5 largeast economy in THE WORLD. You heard that right.

We need to spread the openness and ideals of the bay area across the country. 1962 is over. It's time to push freedom and individuality to the test. Look no farther than the bay area to see how to do it. The fifth largest economy in the world. Why? Less gop sabotage and MEME ME ME. I work out of the bay and nobody can get anything done. The business employee's won't teach their knowledge. Won;t document. Won;t grow the business because they don't want to lose their jobs. It's crazy. In san jose these people would get shoen the door. The business comes first. In terms of politics, the country comes first. We need to get rid of the republican saboturs. That of marginalize them, or send them to rupert murdoch land in austrialia

"wealth with honor" -- JEP where did you come up with that?

Mad as Hell at Klobuchar writes
"Klobuchar is attempting to shift all the blame onto the President of the United States!

Why is Amy Klobuchar making the media rounds to blame a federal politician for a local failure of funds allocation? Isn't that the question you should be asking?"

If Senator Klobuchar's comments are misdirected, in blaming the President and/or all Republicans, that doesn't necessarily imply that she should bear the blame instead. I can certainly understand you'd be upset if she blamed someone you support, who you think should not be blamed; but turning the blame back on her makes no sense what-so-ever. Personally, I haven't seen the comments you're responding to. From what I've seen so far, Senator Klobuchar tends not to be a knee-jerk partisan hack that tries to blame everything on Republicans, but there's certainly no reason she couldn't turn into such a creature - she wouldn't be the first, if this is, in fact, what's happened.

"faltering (or falthering...)?"

ridiculing typos suggests you are quite new to blogging....

"filthy rich."

Has that term ever been more meaningful than it is today?

The concept of "wealth with honor" is dead.

"I know that this concept can be tough for the economics-challenged, but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue; go look at the figures if you don't believe me." JD -- JD, that sounds likes it's straight from Giulianni yesterday. Unfortunately, "almost always" is an overstatement. It all depends on a lot of variables, which any credible economist will tell have to be factored into the equation to see what the result will be. The variables change all of the time. A tax cut is no guarantee of a revenue increase.

NEW YORK -- Bear Stearns Cos. said Sunday that co-President and co-Chief Operating Officer Warren Spector has resigned following the meltdown of two hedge funds that invested in risky mortgage-backed securities.

Separately, another ratings agency, Fitch Ratings, downgraded $46.4 million worth of Bear Stearns bonds backed by subprime mortgages, or home loans to people with spotty credit histories.

The news sent the Wall Street brokerage's shares tumbling to their lowest price since November 2005. The shares, which have lost nearly one-third of their value this year, fell $7.28, or 6.3 percent, to close Friday at $108.35.

"Why is the economy falthering now, brainiac? Wealthy people hardly pay any taxes at all."

Posted by: | August 6, 2007 12:01 PM

Brainiac? Hmm, I rather like the appellation; did you think it up yourself?

How, exactly, is the economy faltering (or falthering...)? Stats please, not more of your emotional blather. Likewise, if the wealthy aren't paying any taxes, is that just class warfare talking points from tinfoilhats.com, or did you actually have some evidence of that?

For now, Iowa caucus goers are frosty on the current slate of candidates, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday. Only 19% of Republican caucus-goers responded that they were "very satisfied" with the current slate of GOP candidates.

"With the dawn of the Web, it began to dawn on the GOP propagandists that they were no longer able to spew out lies without being challenged."

Good point.

While they can buy off a few thousand Mainstream Media hacks and "top poundits", they just can't buy off 10 Million bloggers who are Mad as Hell!!!

And as those bloggers (Talking Points Memo, Firedog Lake, Digby, The Next Hurrah, YKos etc. etc.) supplant the MSM as the 4th Estate, the MSM that abdicated that throne doesn't seem to realize what hit them.

Journalists, bloggists, opinionates are contriving to create a viable Democratic candidate for 2008 -- and all knowingly or unwittingly in cahoots with the GOP sachems. And that is to please the hand which feeds 'em. Hey, why not? The kingmakers know that anger simmering under the candidates skins will erupt with enough provokation. Seed the conferences, the debates with just enough "juice" to get the resentments rising and you've got an image for the character assassins to target.

But it need not be a display of pique -- even a display of triumph [witness the claque over Dr. Dean's exuberance] is enough for the journalists to cluck their
collective tongues. Remember the calm of
GHW Bush when faced with perturbation. When criticized for not grocery shopping enough, it made him likeable and courtly. But when shopping for armaments he knows his onions. Yes, it was the stupid economy. But where are the journalists now to criticize the prodigal son? They've now come around to applaud his compassionate nature and good heart. Was it Mercutio who cried: "A pox on both their houses!"? Or could it be Edwards?

"We keep our options quiet. We don't go out to say to a nation that's working with us that we intend to go in there and bring on a unilateral attack," said Romney. "The only people who can defeat radical jihadists are Muslims themselves."

So I guess that means he's all for getting out of Iraq, right?

And Pakistan is hardly 'working with this...'

Obama told the group Sunday that he was surprised by the strong reaction.

"If we had actionable intelligence in terms of taking (terrorists) out and we couldn't get the government of Pakistan to act, we should act. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial statement," he said.

"The model shows that the oscillations within the core of the star are so strong that they eventually turn into sound waves, essentially restarting the halted explosion. Registering at an audible frequency, the sound wave has been consistently found, through the computer model, to be equivalent to the F-note above middle C, Burrows said."
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/117855

Sorry, OT, but the Sing for the Blogs thing just got me thinking...

Angry is a fitting emotion to express what is currently going on in the current administration - especially their foreign policies. Estimated by the Borgen Project, every 3.6 seconds, another person dies of starvation. The initial thought is shock, and then anger that as one of the wealthiest and most resourceful country world-reknown for it's capabilities, the United States has done little to end this atrocity.

OT, but anyone here know how F-major relates to supernovas?

"Viva la Blogs!"

That was in F-major!

The Real Reason The Wingnuts Hate YearlyKos
Once upon a time, it was easy to be a GOP propagandist. Up until the mid-1990s, Republicans could spew out lies all day long and rarely had to worry about any watchdogs holding them accountable. Oh sure, there were a few obscure leftist print publications here and there, but they had tiny circulations and were often difficult to come by.... With the dawn of the Web, it began to dawn on the GOP propagandists that they were no longer able to spew out lies without being challenged.

"Network consolidators in media and the network consolidators in broadband are both talking about the same thing, fusing conduit and content, content and distribution. By controlling both, they can keep competing voices out with very far-reaching consequences for our economy, for our culture, for entertainment, for the credibility of our news, for the vitality of our civic dialogue, for the future of our democracy. So even if you rarely watch TV or read a newspaper, even if you wouldn't shed a tear if old media somehow disappeared tomorrow morning, I hope you will see that these phenomenon are really blood related."

In the coming months, the FCC will revisit media ownership rules that the Bush administration first tried to pass in 2003, but were later tossed out by both the courts and Congress. At the same time, a fight rages in Congress over so-called Net neutrality, which would prohibit telecommunications companies from giving preference to certain content that is delivered over broadband.

Neither issue gets much attention, but Copps, a balding former assistant secretary of commerce, has a way of turning incredibly complex bureaucratic rule makings into morality plays. "The way you win, the only way you win, is to take this story not just to Capitol Hill but all across America," he said. "Talk about it, write about it, blog about it. If you can sing, sing about it."

Are you kidding me? We all should know that the executive branch has the power to use the funds the way they want to. The legislative branch only appropriate the funds. And the last time I checked, both Pawlenty and Bush are repubs. Is it all their fault? No, not completely. What's really to blame is the whole idea of that it is better to keep "my money" away from the government instead of investing in our infrastructure. Everyone hates traffic congestion, but how do we fix it. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!! But guess what, good jobs come from that. EFficiency of travel comes from that. Yes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Its a win-win for the country, but repubs think it is more important to keep the rich, filthy rich.

Like Bush who says he will veto the child healthcare bill that would cost somewhere around 35-50 billion over 5 years. But he wants to get rid of the estate tax so that the Walton family can save $35 billion. Glad that the kids of Sam Walton are more important than millions of children.

Yep, repubs are the party of family values... if your family is filthy rich.

'Um, it happened because our government spending increased faster than our revenue increased. I know that this concept can be tough for the economics-challenged, but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue; '

Typical R-trollism - demsa are 'economics-challenged' -- then a barrage of voodoo economics. Except none of it is true. Why is the economy falthering now, brainiac? Wealthy people hardly pay any taxes at all.

wELL SAID mIKEb. yOU ARE THE MAN ;)

"Because Klobuchar is attempting to shift all the blame onto the President of the Unite