Grovers groovy and Guiliani's gutsy, Thompsons terrific, and for Mr Romney, put away the Mitt - its time to take the baseball bat and hit a homer!

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanuka, Mubarak Eid and may the reindeers light your skies. God Bless and protect all our troops in harms way.

Joe Quinn - NYC USA
"register Republicans, not guns"

claudialong,
"bush has cut the budgets for a number of deparments, like those overseeing our food and water supply for instnace, leaving them understaffed and underfunded, which is why we are enjoying such a sharp increase in epidemics of food poisoning." Oh for crips sake, please cite.

bsimon,
Affordable healthcare for everyone is a "free lunch", IMO.

"he & his people claim that we can get something for nothing - that by reducing government spending we'll get better government." My understanding of his philosophy is that he believes (as do I) that 'smaller' is 'better', not necessarily more efficient or competent. There can be inefficient governments of every size but I think that the larger one gets, the more opportunity there is for inefficiencies (and incompetence).

I am not for mandating a balanced budget. That is what I call a ISLAGIATT (It Sounds Like A Good Idea At The Time). While I think that governments should strive to maintain a balanced budget and while I think it would 'help' our elected leaders of both parties with their finances, I think there are times when a country just might need (not just want) to go into debt. That is not to be confused with the GWB approach.

I trend toward framing the argument as what the government SHOULD do vs. what it COULD do. Whether or how we could pay for a program that purportedly helps some constituency is not the arguement for me, it's whether the federal government should be doing that in the first place or whether there is some other person or entity that could do it better/cheaper/closer with more accountability.

I think the talk of Huck as a VP nominee is premature. Look at his rise in Iowa, he may well be the Presidential nominee. If Guiliani does win the nomination, I think Miss. gov. Haley Barbour will be Rudy's VP. He's a favorite of social conservatives and knows propably more fundraisers than does George Bush, due to his stint as head of the National Republican Committee.

JimD -- Your point is well taken that in some very limited circumstances tax cuts may spur sufficient economic growth to pay for themselves. Given that GWB's own economic advisers have estimated that his tax cuts at best "paid" for 10-25% of what they cost, we're clearly not talking about those circumstances here.

Also, to be clear I'm no more dogmatically opposed to tax cuts than I am dogmatically supportive of them. For example, Reagan was right to cut taxes in the 1980s. He was also right to then RAISE them again in '86 b/c they'd been cut too much.

Ultimately, I just think we need to pay for tax cuts if we pass them and that the debate needs to be framed properly. Supply side economics, as used by today's GOP, precludes both a real debate and fosters irresponsible fiscal measures that we can't afford.

There have been occasions when cutting a certain tax boosted economic activity and increased revenue from that tax. The example that inspired the supply siders was Kennedy's capital gains tax reduction. The rate was reduced, lowering the penalty for investors who wanted to collect their gains and use the money for something else. Consequently, more investors sold under the lower rate than would have been the case otherwise. Far more gains realized at a lower rate produced more capital gains tax revenue.

However, extrapolating that to all taxes, at all times is tenuous. The initial Reagan tax cuts spurred a great deal of economic activity. Marginal tax rates were confiscatory - up to 70%. However, the increased tax revenue never covered the level of government spending under Reagan.

Incidentally, the amount of budget authority Reagan requested in his budgets was pretty close to what Congress gave him. The size of the deficits would not have been much lower if he had received exactly what he requested. Reagan did not really push hard to significantly reduce the size of government.

exactly, bsimon -- what the club for greed/bushies beleive in is a fairy tale free lunch.

and btw, bush has cut the budgets for a number of deparments, like those overseeing our food and water supply for instnace, leaving them understaffed and underfunded, which is why we are enjoying such a sharp increase in epidemics of food poisoning.

i suppose if a so-called conservative's kid died from a preventable poisoning, they would shrug their shoulders and say it's worth it for the sake of 'smaller government.'

dave writes
"I guess the liberal approach to "governing" would be to create "popular" social programs that suggest some sort of a free lunch to win votes, increase taxes to pay for them leaving huge and growing entitlements for future generations thereby guaranteeing a huge bill for them?"


Your use of 'free lunch' is interesting. I think while liberals' initial intentions do not match what you claim, it seems like sometimes good intentions turn into sacred cows. But on the 'free lunch', that's what I view the Norquist argument as; he & his people claim that we can get something for nothing - that by reducing government spending we'll get better government. It seems like a patently ridiculous argument. Here's a hypothesis: the amount of money collected by government does not correlate to the quality of the government. In other words, a government with minimal funding could be as incompetent as an over-funded government. Likewise, an underfunded government could be well-run, as can well-funded gov't. An honest argument would pose specific budget cuts along with tax cuts in order to achieve a responsible, balanced budget. Likewise, on the other side, responsible spending increases would include sources of funding, which would presumably include tax or fee increases.

Dave -- If EVEN Bush's economic advisers admit that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, YES I do find that quite telling. You don't?

As far as Reagan goes, I agree with you that his INTENT was to reduce government spending outside of defense. He didn't do it, but my whole point was that - unlike GWB - I think he actually thought cuting taxes would eventually force spending cuts. That assumption has proven false, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. GWB, in contrast, simply doesn't care about balancing the budget.

As far as your comparison to "liberals," which again I guess means anyone to your political left, I can only speak for myself. I'm a balanced budget progressive, which means I don't favor any spending increase that we're not willing to pay for. That doesn't sound like promising free lunch to me. Rather, that kind of approach allows voters to actually make informed decisions regarding the amount of government they're willing to support and pay for.

You and I would obviously disagree about how much government is too much government, but what's wrong with actually having that conversation out in the open? If you really think your approach is better, presumably the voters will agree without the Rudy's of the world promising them that they can have both tax cuts and all the government programs they want.

_Colin,
"I simply think it's ridiculous for him to argue that tax cuts pay for themselves when even Bush's own economists concede that's not true". For 7 years, nobody has believed a word the Bush econ advisors said. Now all of a sudden, those same ex-advisors have somehow become credible?

"The idea, under Reagan, was exactly what you described; cut taxes enough and government will ultimately have to be reduced." That was not Reagan's idea. Reagan wanted to cut the size of government also (with the exception of Defense). He simply failed at it as he choose to build the military and cut taxes to spur econ growth. He chose deficits because he believed it more important to defeat the USSR than to run a balanced budget, given the economical and political realities of the time.

Arguing for cutting taxes and spending is the better argument. You can make the cutting taxes and cutting the rate of increase of spending arguement but it is not quite as good. Making the arguement that a doller in your hand is better used than a doller in the governements hand is the best arguement. Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

"Which, of course, brings us to the Bush/Rudy approach to "governing." Cut taxes, grow government to win votes, and pawn the credit card bill off on the next generation." I guess the liberal approach to "governing" would be to create "popular" social programs that suggest some sort of a free lunch to win votes, increase taxes to pay for them leaving huge and growing entitlements for future generations thereby guaranteeing a huge bill for them?

claudialong,
"dave--tryi to use the English language properly. Something I have paid for is not 'welfare'. Get over it."

Something I don't want or need is not a benefit. Payment for something that is of no benefit to me in order to provide it to someone that does have a need for it is welfare. Welfare is defined as financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

Really, Colin. These people are breathtakingly, savagely cynical. The scum has risen to the top.

Drindl -- I see your point, but I actually think the GOP is more irresponsible than what you suggest. The idea, under Reagan, was exactly what you described; cut taxes enough and government will ultimately have to be reduced. The old drown the beast idea.

In reality, it's now clear that the GOP has no stomach for actually slashing spending. Why? Because eliminating programs that would actually make an impact on the budget risks angering the voters and elected GOP officials. Which, of course, brings us to the Bush/Rudy approach to "governing." Cut taxes, grow government to win votes, and pawn the credit card bill off on the next generation. Really, it's the height of cynicism at work.

Colin, the modern gop's 'vision' is to cut taxes, run up an enormous deficit, and use that as an exuse to cut popular programs, by saying we just can't afford them anymore. It's a deliberate strategy, and it's working. This is why so called 'conservatives' don't care anymore about deficits. At a certain point, other countries' governments will stop lending to us because of our fiscal responsibility and programs will have to be cut. Clever, eh?

Dave -- here's a quote from the ad:

"I believe that you collect more money from lower taxes than you collect from higher taxes. I believe it because I saw it work..."

I think it's great if he wants to brag about reducing the growth of spending in NY City. Heck, its great if he wants to brag about reducing taxes while Mayor. I simply think it's ridiculous for him to argue that tax cuts pay for themselves when even Bush's own economists concede that's not true.

Arguing for lower taxes AND a corresponding reduction in government spending is a legitimate philosophical argument that appeals to a lot of people. Arguing that we can cut taxes without cuting programs that a lot of people actually like, which is essentially GWB's vision of the the modern GOP, is not a legitimate or responsible argument. That's my only point.

'I'll grant you that, especially when taken out of context, he infers tax cuts pay for themselves. '

but it's not taken out of context. that's what he bleives, just as this administration does. In magic. I saw a bizzare report on MSNBC from some 'conservative' called 'Tax Cuts Balance Budgets' and the speaker suddenly veered into a Rudy boost, without mentioning any othr candidate. it's weird how nobody pays any attention to laws anymore. It's like overnight they ceased to exist.

bsimon-- he did no such thing. during his second term he spent like a maniac, leaving a deficit, but still managing to gut budget for essential equipment for firefighters and cops.

There was serious opposition within the military and intelligence communities to bombing Iran even before the new intelligence assessment. Consider the following:

- our intelligence on the whereabouts of Iranian nuclear weapons facilities is not that complete. We do not know where they all are.

- it is believed that many of the facilities are deep underground

- the potential for civilian casualties is quite high.

If bombing won't take out the facilities, the only other military option would be to attack. Our military is stretched quite thin. Invading Iran is out of the question. It is considerably larger than Iraq and we quite simply do not have the forces to do it. The Pentagon does not want to occupy another Muslim country.

Iran could respond to air strikes or invasion by closing the Straits of Hormuz thereby shutting down oil shipments from the Gulf. The effect on the world economy would be devastating.

Extended conflict in Iran would make the oil situation far worse - can you see $150 to $200 per barrel oil.

Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism but not groups generally directed at us (except for their support of Shiite militias in Iraq and that seems to have tailed off lately). Their proxy terrorist groups are mostly attacking Israel. They could definitely launch terrorist attacks against us.

And, on top of all that, air strikes might not wipe out their nuclear weapons capabililty. Failed military strikes would be about the worse that could happen.

giuliani is quoted as saying
"I reduced the growth of government."

So, he doesn't actually shrink gov't, he slows the growth? He's not really reducing spending then, he's merely slowing the growth of spending; the question is whether that spending growth is done with borrowed money or actual tax revenue.

_Colin,
Interestingly enough, the Potomac Pravda, er, WaPo focused on that part of the ad and not the part where Giuliani states "When I became mayor of New York City things were out of control. I lowered taxes. I reduced the growth of government."

It seems to me that he is for both reducing spending and cutting taxes. I'll grant you that, especially when taken out of context, he infers tax cuts pay for themselves. This is probably intentional but if one is going to pick apart an ad, you need to do it in context, something the WaPo continues to have trouble with.

drindl

I think the Club for Growth will be happy with Giuliani as the nominee and wouldn't fuss too much about Huckabee as VP. Huckabee will undergo a miraculous conversion to tax cutting similar to George H W Bush's conversion to supply side economics, formerly known as voodoo economics.

Seriously, the Republican coalition is fraying. The differences between the religious right and other elements are becoming more pronounced. Giuliani needs to hold the coalition together if he is the nominee (although he probably does have more crossover appeal than anyone except McCain). Huckabee is a good campaigner and, unlike many religious right leaders, he is quite likable. Contrast him to Falwell and Robertson who were/are always calling down God's wrath on sinners who deviated from their cramped view of religion.

"ever notice that when drindl and rufas get on a roll the entire thread is battier than a Transylvanian cave?"

Gee, zouk, I thought that happened when you and rufus get on a roll.

Jim -- I just read I think yesterday that the Club for Greed was mounting a campaign to attack Huckabee. The question is, will he pull a McCain and knuckle under and cuddle up to vicious attackers? That was what really disappointed me most about McCain--I thought he was more principled than that. So this will tell us whether Huckabee truly has any integrity or not.

Did you see this? It demonstrates that Dick Cheney is quite insane. It frightens me. Dick Cheney calls every day for bombing Iran -- quite a little obsession there -- but our intelligence sources say THERE'S NOTHING TO BOMB. So apparently he just wants to bomb someplace in Iran. Any old place, doesn't much matter... just as long as it starts a war... I don't beleive in our history we have ever had anyone this insane in office. You're so-well versed in history, what do you think?

'However, the new NIE will make it harder for proponents of military action against Iran to argue their case.

One source, who has close links to US intelligence, said that members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff continued to call for military strikes against Iran "on a daily basis".'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7126117.stm

I think JimD is right about Huck as Rudy's VP if Rudy wins the nomination. Heck, Huckabee has already moved to pacify "economic conservatives" (the quotes are important, since they only care about tax cuts) by proposing the institution of the regressive "fair tax."

Speaking of Club for Growth orthodoxy, anyone catch the Post editorial about Rudy's voodoo economics claims? In one of his adds he talks about how Democrats don't understand that tax cuts CREATE for tax revenue. The Post then cites BUSH'S economic team, which admits that tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves. It's a good read and appropriately titled: "Mr. Giuliani and the Tax Fairy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002190.html

drindl

I am convinced that Huckabee would be Giuliani's running mate if Rudy wins the nomination. Giuliani will have to reach out to the evangelicals and Huckabee is a religious conservative who, at least to this point, hasn't scared off moderates the way a Pat Robertson or Gary Bauer do. It also helps to have a ticket totally unconnected with Washington. Should Huckabee get the VP nod, he will make the necessary obeisance to the cult of Norquist.

Guiliani is deserving all right -- of a prison sentence for stealing from american taxpayers, along with Norquist. They deserve each other.

I do wonder if this will mean that Huckabee won't be Guiliani's VP, something I thought possible. But Norquist has a personal vendetta against Huck -- he's too clean, he actually beleives in good government -- so I guess that's just not possible. But Huckabee should avoid soiling himself by associaion with Rudy anyway.

"In looking at the records of all the Republican candidates, yours [Giuliani] clearly stands out," Norquist adds.

Curious that he would not be supporting Paul whose limited government/low tax message would seem to fit right up his alley. Nonetheless, Giuliani is deserving and will benefit from this, should it happen - a conservative can't help but benefit from the endorsement of the leading advocate for limited governement and low taxes.

Whether wittingly or not, Norquist also played a role in one of the biggest anti-American and un-American rip-offs of recent history:

http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/09/12/will-illegal-aliens-take-rebuilding-jobs.html

Taxpayers got screwed at least three ways because of what both Bush and the Dems did:
1. Paying an inflated price for contracts.
2. Paying to warehouse people in Atlanta/Houston/etc.
3. Paying the continued social costs of #2.

Not exactly fiscal responsibility, although some people made a lot off it.

That crook norquist ought to be in jail--he's involved in only slightly fewer shady dealings than Abramoff. In fact, he was involved in some of Abramoff's deals along with Ralph Reed, that noble Christian. Not surprising that Rudy, who never met a crook he couldn't do business with, is courting him.

And to point to congress' approval is moot. YEah leadership is cowardly. But the peopel see your gop for the obstructionists they are. How many of yoru good old boys are dropping liek flies? Are teh d's also dropping as fast? No. ok, there is your answer .your party is done. your unwillingness to hold your own accountable got you in the deep water. Enjoy your irrelevance.

"When they took power, they had three major goals: to end the war in Iraq, cripple this presidency, and pave the way for a Democratic sweep next year. They have failed in all three respects"

We'll see. Won't we. 06 elections were not good at all for you. Have things improved? Only if you only hold the dem's accountable, like you do. We will see what the american peopel think 08. I can't wait to hear you then. OOO happy day. :)

Norquist? Who is advising Guliani? Grover Norquist has some of the widest name recognition and negatives in the country. This is tantamount to announcing his being in league with Satan. Is Guliani that crazy and desparate?

Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a "failure," but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.

the dustball reacts to facts - we don't need no stinkin facts.

"nobody's listening"

see what happens when the moonbats take over the site. Just ask MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Air America etc. they can vouch for declining ratings caused by extreme libs.

Taste good CC?

The scumbag Guiliani courts the scumbag Norquist. Is this surprising?

You have fun, now, zouk -- nobody's listening.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid return to work this week. But the Congress they lead is already a failure, no matter what they now do.

When they took power, they had three major goals: to end the war in Iraq, cripple this presidency, and pave the way for a Democratic sweep next year. They have failed in all three respects

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzdhZmY5ZGMwNGYzNDA2NDM3MmEyYTIzYjY4NDBjYWI=

Even "old friend" Robert Reich isn't happy with Hillary's campaign:

If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything.

Ouch.

Rudy is done. Sorry FOx.

Are you talking to yourself again zouk. you are a sick puppy, my freind. Are you concerned about your small world crumbling around you?

What is your take in the news from Iran today. Teh gop has been silent as a mouse on this today. He he he. What you got, tough guy, who refuses to enlist.

" Great new read by Ben Wallace-Wells in this month's Rolling Stone that exposes how the $500 Billion spent on the Drug War over the last 35 years has been all but a complete waste of time and money, and an absolute failure by any standard of measure.

[A]fter U.S. drug agents began systematically busting up the Colombian cartels - doubt was replaced with hard data. Thanks to new research, U.S. policy-makers knew with increasing certainty what would work and what wouldn't. The tragedy of the War on Drugs is that this knowledge hasn't been heeded. We continue to treat marijuana as a major threat to public health, even though we know it isn't. We continue to lock up generations of teenage drug dealers, even though we know imprisonment does little to reduce the amount of drugs sold on the street. And we continue to spend billions to fight drugs abroad, even though we know that military efforts are an ineffective way to cut the supply of narcotics in America or raise the price.

All told, the United States has spent an estimated $500 billion to fight drugs - with very little to show for it. [...]

Even by conservative estimates, the War on Drugs now costs the United States $50 billion each year and has overcrowded prisons to the breaking point - all with little discernible impact on the drug trade. ...(read on)

That is a truly one great article every policy maker should have to read. I can't ever read a word on this topic without remembering how Col Oliver North was involved in smuggling cocaine into the U.S. under Reagan, circumventing Congress to pay for an illegal proxy war, which coincided with the birth of the crack epidemic at the very same time the President had declared a 'War on Drugs' (Remember Nancy's 'Just Say No'?) and the great expansion in the building of prisons and increasing sentences that has resulted in the disenfranchisement of generations of disproportionately black would-be voters to this very day. But of course all that was just another unintended but electorally significant consequence of Ronald Reagan's.

"

Zouk is a kook

cc - ever notice that when drindl and rufas get on a roll the entire thread is battier than a Transylvanian cave?

they are truly the sages of their respective asylums.

time for some new blood on this blog.

so now Murtha is such a coward and a defeatist, he doesn't even think the defeatists can win. Is that a triple negative?

also its monday, what is hillary's position this week? Is there a new poll out? I see bill flip-flopped recently too.

God, that desperation smell is everywhere today. It's just permeating everything.

Between this "news" and HRC's new attacks on Obama (What he thought in kindergarten? Really? I wanted to be a sniper or a masked vigilante in kindergarten but I don't own a gun or tights) this campaign season is shaping up to be as boring as it is weird. Oxymoronic, right? Apparently not.