Greenspan, Summers: Economy needs handouts, tax cuts

Isn't it amazing how little we know about our economy?
Think now, if you had invested your Social Security money in the stock market, like Pres. Bush suggest we do, and you were planning on retiring in say one or two years. How would you be feeling right now?

The best Bush could say is that there are "storm clouds" on the horizon. To some, it looks like a Hurricane Katrina is approaching.

We know how well he handled that crisis.

I do agree that O'Really,Rush and Hanniscum could use some tax relief and food stamps.

I don't think Bush has done enough for their ILK.

"GREENSPAN SPEAKS"

I'M NO LONGER UNDER GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY LAW OF ECONOMICS.

I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WANTED THE AMERICAN DREAM TO BE FILLED JUST TO TREAT IT LIKE A PIECE OF STOCK.

DUMP IT, DUMP IT ALL. SO WHAT IF THE RICH GETS KICKED TO THE CURB.

WE HAVE PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS TO STEP IN WITH 5 BILLION DOLLARS FROM CHINA.

SO GREENSPAN GOT USED, THE FEDERAL RESERVE GOT USED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE TREASURY SECRETARY IN THE LAST TWO CONGRESS'

SHAKE THE AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS DREAM WITH ECONOMIC PROPAGANDA -

THE POOR MAN IS COMING, THE POOR MAN IS COMING, HE OWNS A HOUSE, HE HAS EQUITY, HE HAS THE POWER OF THE VOTE.

CHANGE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF EVERYONE, AND LETS GO TAKE IT BACK.

WE WILL AUCTION OFF THE AMERICAN DREAM TO HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEES COMING BACK FROM IRAQ.

SO WHAT IF IT'S A MILITARY MEMBER OVERSEAS. BLACK TOO, OH FORGET THAT, AND HE DOESN'T HAVE A VOTE IT'S CAGED UP IN ALBERTO GONZALES EMAILS.

Know if only the Federal Reserve, and the Bush administration would listen.

Would not expect the democrat liberal to say anything else.

It's not surprising thsat William "Santa, please give us a recession for Christmas" Neikirk, sees "raised" eyebrows over tax cuts. William, tax cuts spur economic growth, and after an initial dip in government revenues, actually increases government revenues in the long run Also, Neikirk, countries that have lowered their tax rates for individuals AND corporations see their economies GROW. But Neikirk is a socialist, perhaps even communist, at heart and believes higher taxes is the solution to everything.

John D;
Every act has a point of diminishing returns.
So it is with tax cuts.
If we totally eliminate taxes, would that make us a rich nation? Or would we just be a country without infrastructure?
Raising taxes also has a point of diminishing returns.
Question is, how do we know where those points are?
One thing seems pretty certain, whatever we spend, we have to collect taxes to pay for it, someday.
I still wonder how you would feel if you had been allowed to put all of your Social Security taxes into the stock market and were planning on retiring in the next year or two.

"tax cuts spur economic growth, and after an initial dip in government revenues, actually increases government revenues in the long run."

This assertion is verifiably false and Rudy Giuliani continues to get skewered by all but the blindest blind (we know where you stand, Dyslin) for continuing to trumpet it. Even the Bush Administration admits that at best the tax cuts have recovered 10-15% of their cost, which, here on planet Earth, is nowhere close to generating the revenue lost.

Nice try.

But Neikirk is a socialist, perhaps even communist, at heart and believes higher taxes is the solution to everything.

Oh wells you should know. You "Sanat please bring me WWIII for Christmas" got both covered on the abroad front. Expansive military is the solution for everything.

Also, Neikirk, countries that have lowered their tax rates for individuals AND corporations see their economies GROW.

Posted by: John D | December 19, 2007 2:32 PM

Actually Johnny D if that were true the continent of Africa would be booming. Why has China had double digit growth each quarter for years? Have they lowered taxes on individuals and corporations?

The banks created too much credit while Greenspan was chairman. They didn't adequately "insure" themselves. There are international concerns that shouldn't be protect from their folly by us. At most we should buy their assets at its reduced value and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, St. Michael, I did some analysis of your question. If Social Security had had as good a return as my 401(k) has had over my career, instead of the paltry 2% per annum that we hear that it gets, the "trust fund" would be rolling in dough right now. My 401(k) is allocated among a variety of investments, primarily domestic and foreign equities. It went through the crash of 1987 and the free-fall after the 9/11 attacks, and today has approximately seven times the cash value of the money that I've put into it. Yes, the stock market has its ups and downs, but if you allocate your money, don't try to beat the market, and stay in for the long term, you'll do well, certainly better than those who have been charged with investing the Social Security money have done.

Isn't it amazing how little we know about our economy?
Think now, if you had invested your Social Security money in the stock market, like Pres. Bush suggest we do, and you were planning on retiring in say one or two years. How would you be feeling right now?

Posted by: San Miguel | December 19, 2007 12:31 PM

That really depends on the stocks in which you invest. If I had all my social sercurity money invested in just one of the companies in which I currently own stock, I would be feeling very good right now.

If I had all my social sercurity money invested in just one of the companies in which I currently own stock, I would be feeling very good right now.

Posted by: John W. | December 19, 2007 4:30 PM

And if you had it all in Enron, you'd be begging on a street corner when you retired.

Every retirement portfolio needs a base of lower growth, minimal risk investments to protect the individual if their other investments fail, which they very well may.

But Neikirk is a socialist, perhaps even communist, at heart and believes higher taxes is the solution to everything.
_____________________________
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah

Whew, let me grow dry my eyes. Man that was good. I needed some comedy after my day.

Even Al has figured out that a whole segment of our 'society' was screwed by predatory lenders.
"I would be feeling very good right now.
John W,"

Yeah, right now, but, in a year? Who knows. The stock market is the worlds largest pyramid scheme. It's even bigger than Social Security.

Fact is, SS is a perfect diversification and confidence building investment by society as a whole. With SS as a floor it gives us little people the nerve to put some of our 'wealth' (ha ha) in the 'slot' market.

My advice to young workes; Never invest heavily in the stock of the company you work for.

Now that I think about it, let's follow juannieed's "logic". Let's cut all taxes. It would end the illegal occupation of Iraq! No tax revenue means no disbursements for the military. But then, of course, according to juannieed, bruthiee, pillow and tearriee, with no American troops in Iraq to die for the cause, the terrorists would win.

Why does juannieed hate America?

Even Al has figured out that a whole segment of our 'society' was screwed by predatory lenders.
"I would be feeling very good right now.
John W,"

Yeah, right now, but, in a year? Who knows. The stock market is the worlds largest pyramid scheme. It's even bigger than Social Security.

Fact is, SS is a perfect diversification and confidence building investment by society as a whole. With SS as a floor it gives us little people the nerve to put some of our 'wealth' (ha ha) in the 'slot' market.

My advice to young workers; Never invest heavily in the stock of the company you work for.

Hopeless John D., still drinking the voodoo economics kool-aid even after several quotes by Bush's own economist have been posted dispelling the myth.

John D., Trickle-down Terry, take note:

To a question about tax disparities, Buffett said he surveyed 13 workers in his office and found that they paid an average tax rate of 32.9 percent, compared with the 17.7 percent that he pays.

"My cleaning lady pays a higher tax on her earnings than I do on my dividends and investments," he said. "It's better to earn in the boardroom than in the bathroom."

Buffett also touted one of his pet causes: He opposes a repeal of the estate tax, which now brings in $24 billion a year.

"Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog," he said. "If there were no estate tax, the dog would have gotten $22 million."

Alluding to Bush administration policies, Buffett said: "In the last seven-eight years, the super-rich have gotten a huge break... It has been a marvelous, marvelous time to be super-rich." The catch: "Nothing trickles down."

He has faith in "the ability of the American economy to generate more and more prosperity," Buffett said. "The real test of this country will be how widely is that prosperity shared."

Buffett also said he feels strongly that the United States is making a serious mistake by importing $2 billion a day more than it exports.

"If you force-feed $2 billion a day to the rest of the world, they get somewhat less enthusiastic over time - and the dollar is worth less," he said.

"We're like a very rich family; we own a farm the size of Texas but want to consume more" than the farm generates, he said. "Every day, we sell off or mortgage a piece of the farm."

If the policy continues, over time, the rest of the world "will own more of our farm" and future generations will resent that they spend part of their workweek paying off those costs of consumption, he said.

SAn Miguel,

"I still wonder how you would feel if you had been allowed to put all of your Social Security taxes into the stock market and were planning on retiring in the next year or two."

First, if I was retiring in a year or two, I would have been gradually pulling by money from the stock market anyway, since I would be wanting to reduce my risk.

Second, I could only wish I could have invested the 12.4% that the gov't has confiscated from me over the decades and had invested it the stokc market. I have run the numbers and by the time my wife and I retire, we would have well into a seven-digit (all left of the decimal) lump-sum.

Karl Marx' brother,

China has strong growth because it is a new economy. Africa is run buy a bunch of thieves.

For a better example, look at the eastern European democracies and see what their tax rates are. Lokk at Ireland and its tax rate and look at their GDP.

Even Charlie Rangle has propsed to lower the US Corporate Tax Rate in order to help keep capital in America.

If you don't think lower taxes doesn't increase economic activity - go to any store that borders Chicago or Cook County. You will seee more activity at the stores on the other side of these borders. Capital seeks lower costs, including taxes.

CMorris,

At least you admit Social Security is a pyramid scheme. Keep stuffing your allowance in your mattress.

To the "young workers":

The only thing CM speaks is well is not putting all your eggs in one basket (your company). Other than that, what his qualifications for financial advice produces the crap he spewed. Get some professional advice from someone who is certified to provide it.

Neikirk,

John D called you a commie!!

You are in terrific company! What more evidence do you need?

C. Morris, excellent advice. The financial advisers that I've talked to say never to have more than 5-10% of your money in the stock of ANY one company. Unfortunately, many company savings plans automatically invest at least a portion of their employees' savings, and the corporate match, in company stock, so it's easy to accumulate a lot of it. The employee has to review the plan regularly and spread that money around.

The mistake made by Enron employees was the one of having all of their money in Enron stock, so when Enron tanked, so did they. One of the stories circulated was that Enron required it; if that was so, it would have been a strong signal to go look for work somewhere else.

It's important to remember that this is the money you're going to live on in retirement, so the saver has to be actively involved in it. Social Security is a good "floor" for passive savers, but if you rely on it, you're not going to live very well in your old age.

Dave,

You seem to have your head screwed on right, unlike Terry.
Anyway, I agree with your posting.

Terry,
What experience do I have in these matters? Just 43 years in the workforce, including a couple long gigs in Fortune 500 companies that tanked. They all promoted their own stock. One, peaked at $40 per share in the late seventies. It ended up penny stocks before the final death knell.

All,
And what's Terry's sage advice? Get rich, stay rich.

Here is what Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements have gotten our children and grandchildren.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22299587/

This is what would be reported if the gov't had to use the same accounting principles as private industry.

This is what would be reported if the gov't had to use the same accounting principles as private industry.

Posted by: Terry | December 19, 2007 11:08 PM

Yo Terry,
You can't be serious.
Does the firm of Arthur Andersen Accounting ring a bell? You know, one of the worlds largest private industry accounting firms (now dissolved) who's private industry accounting principles brought down Enron and destroyed the jobs and life savings of thousands?

Take a minute and read-up, Terry:

Congress and the Accounting Wars--

During the boom years of the 1990s, the accounting industry flexed its lobbying muscle on Capitol Hill as never before. Here's a look at the three major political battles of the decade's accounting wars: the fight over stock options, the fight over tort reform, and the all-out war over the SEC's attempt to separate auditing and consulting.

The whole sordid tale of how PRIVATE INDUSTRY ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES were used to screw investors and stockholders can be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/congress/

And here's more kudo's for private industry accounting practices, Terry:

Interview with Arthur Levitt,
chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 to 2001, he launched an unsuccessful effort to reform the accounting industry.

What's the significance of the Enron scandal and collapse for the markets as a whole? Is this symptomatic of something larger?

I think the Enron scandal is symptomatic of something much broader than Enron. I think it's symptomatic of a breakdown of the ethical values of business over a period of perhaps 20 years, a gradual erosion of business ethics that brought us to an Enron, but might very well bring us to a whole host of Enrons as we move down the road. ...

[In 1998] you made a speech up in New York in which you used the terms "abuses," "trickery," and "accounting hocus-pocus." Are things that bad?

I think they are. I think that the seduction of the boards of companies that are intended to protect investors ... the nexus between the accounting firms and the corporations, and the aggressive attitudes of CFOs and CEOs, has created a pattern of deception; that has created a situation which has eroded public confidence in the sanctity of the numbers which is the basis of our markets today. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/lessons/

And just in case you thought any lessons were learned, think again:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10481770&pnum=0

But Neikirk is a socialist, perhaps even communist, at heart and believes higher taxes is the solution to everything.

Posted by: John D | December 19, 2007 2:32 PM

No, Dyslin. We now know that tax cuts for the rich are the solution to everything.

Trillion Dollar War?, more tax cuts for the rich. $9
trillion national debt?, more tax cuts for the rich. Stagnant wages for the lower and middle class?, more tax-cuts for the rich. Inflation?, recession?, stagflation?, all can be cured by giving more tax cuts to the rich (NOT!)

How about a real world example why your world-view of tax-cuts is bogus, Johnny D.?:

Growth, prosperity not tied to tax cuts

By KEN NEAL World Senior Editor
5/6/2007

Contrary to the constant preachments of the politicians and what most of us would like to believe, tax cuts do not assure economic growth and prosperity.

Economists have generally debunked the supply-side economics popularized during the Reagan administration. But the politicians continue to claim that tax cuts will spur economic growth so much that government will get more revenue than if taxes had not been cut.

It's reminiscent of the alchemy theory of the Middle Ages when men tried to make gold from base metal.

Neal goes on to examine the effects of Oklahoma's tax cuts to make his point. Those interested read on. Dyslin, close your eyes, plug your ears and go nanananananan...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=070505_7_G6_Contr70410&breadcrumb=editorials

CM,

I see the common thread with the companies you worked at - they failed. Do you have any financial background? Are you certified?

The Reamer,

Before you spout off, get a clue on what you are talking about.

You point to one instance AA/Enron. I am talking about GAAP - better google that since I know you don't know what that means.

As far as EnRon, it was bad that the employees had their retirement in one stock, but did you hear them complain in the 90's when the shady accounting was going on (under Mr Levitt's SEC)and the stock was going up?

AA did not perform the accounting, they audited the accounting. Private industry must reflect the present value of its future liabilities on its balance sheets unlike the gov't.

Terry and John D,
Why do you keep pretending that Social Security is a retirment savings program? It's pooled risk insurance to prevent workers from retiring in POVERTY and provide income to the PERMANANTLY DISABLED.

jethro, exactly right. The point is though, I believe, that if the money put into Social Security had been invested at market rates, instead of being used to shore up the Federal budget and increase the national debt, Social Security would be a lot better off than it is now, and those goals that you mention would be better served.

Terry,

Oh, I see; it's the workers faults that companies fail, not managements fault.

You are not stupid, in fact, you seem smart, but that was a stupid implication.

It was due to the efforts of the 'little people' like me that Old Bessie and that funny little railroad lasted as long as they did.

C. Morris, frequently, when a company fails, there is enough blame to share with everyone.

True, it's management's responsibility to steer the company, and ensure its long-term viability. Often, though, like a ship on a lee shore, management is faced with a very difficult or impossible situation. If the (particularly unionized) workforce cannot face the reality that their continued demands make the company uncompetitive, then management is faced with the real possibility of going out of business. I believe that such is what is occurring in the US auto industry right now, and has already occurred in the British auto industry. In the US, the UAW has the former Big Three by the throat, and there is no mechanism in the union for it to stopm squeezing until all of the life is gone. I'm not very optimistic.

Terry,
So you're saying we should accept that the GAAP which companies like WorldCom, Enron, and Adelphia were essentially bound to but still managed to "massage" so as to screw investors out of billions, and that were validated by "watchdogs" like Arthur Anderson, are going to save us from faulty gov't accounting practices?

I'm not defending gov't accounting practices per se, just pointing out that GAAP haven't prevented the Enrons of the world from "gaming" the system.

I think you also missed that "Levitt's SEC" tried, unsuccessfully, to eliminate the shared dependence among finance, auditing and legal providers and their corporate clients. It's these kind of conflicts that lead to the demise of Enron and AA.

C. Mo.,

You should be comforted by the fact that Terry, with his financial background, has your best interest at heart. Never mind that the accountants he mentions at Enron were most certainly certified, or that the auditors at Arthur Anderson that signed off on their work were equally qualified.

Terry wants us to believe that Corporations represent "the force" and that government is synonymous with the "dark side". Your experience may tell you different, but hey, Trickle-Down Terry knows what's best (for him).

Jethro,

SS in name only is it a "risk insurance to prevent workers from retiring in POVERTY"... I'll give you the disablility portion.

The reason it isn't "risk insurance" is that most people will collect their pension or 401K. Insurance pays out when monetary damage is done to the asset - think your car, house, medical, ...

CM,

I guess you weren't part of mgmt at those Fortune 500 companies and I am hoping you weren't part of the Finance disvions either - based upon your investment advice.

Let me get it straight, it was due to the workers that your companies lasted as long as they did, but it was mgmts fault when they went belly-up?

Terry,

Glad you finally figger'd it out.

I was a salaried system and statistical programmer. I was 'Dilbert', ha ha.

BTW, what the h are you??

Reamed,

GAAP is Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. They are the "rules" of accounting. It has nothing to do with the internal accountants that apply them nor the auditors that certify the financials. Enron/AA was pure blatent fraud. Having your external auditor also performing your internal auditor work was not appropriate. SARBOX has taken care of a lot of this.

Back to the original point, the gov't does not have to recognize future liabilities, such as pensions unlike the private corpoartions.

dts,

I missed your Warren Buffet point. First, Mr. Buffet is giving about $30 billion to the gates foundation, not leaving it for the estate tax.

Second, either Mr. Buffet is ignorant of how his money is being made or he is being disingenous. I'm guessing the latter. Since Mr. Buffet derives most of his income thru capital gains and dividends, most people think he is only paying 15% tax on his dividends and capital gains. However, since Mr. Buffet is a shareholder, a major one at that, his income is really being taxed twice - once at the corporate level at 35% - plus state and then add the dividend and/or capital gains tax on top of that. Therefore, his effective rate is much higher than his cleaning lady.

The top 1% are paying a higher percentage of the nations federal income tax than they ever have.

Some of those imports that Mr. Buffet is talking about is all the oil we import. Anytime you wwant to open up ANWAR, more off-shore drilling, and some other federal lands, I'll back your play.

Enron was fraud accounting. the AA partners that certified the accounting were frauds and therefore criminal action should have been taken. However, the entire AA organization did not deserve to be disbanded. There was a lot of fraud in the last half of the 90's.

CM,

I work in accounting and finance. therefore, on this topic, I know what I speak. If I need an if-then stmt, I'll call.

TD Terry.

I know what GAAP stands for: It's shorthand for rules were meant to be broken in today's corporate culture. The effectiveness of SOX in stemming corporate fraud is debatable. This article is a year old from the WLJ, but I doubt much has changed in a year:

http://www.wislawjournal.com/archive/2006/1225/coenen-122506.htm

BTW, accountants and finance officers are a dime a dozen. You blow off the world's most respected scientist because their conclusions on global warming don't fit your vested interest, yet we're supposed to believe you have all the answers on matters of finance because you cook the books for Exxon or some other energy-related entity.

Even Greenspan said that the sub-prime mess was a temporary "froth in the market". I imagine his credentials trump yours many times over.

Like your idiot-in-chief idol, GWB, you're big on one thing...Hubris.

Terry,

Are you sure you didn't used to work for Arthur Anderson?

The top 1% are paying a higher percentage of the nations federal income tax than they ever have.

Noticed you didn't say they are paying AT a higher TAX RATE. Of course they're paying a higher percentage of the nations fed. income tax...because they're the ones receiving all the benefits (increased revenue) of Bush's tax cuts. Meanwhile middle-class wages are stagnant:

Half of America's Gain in Income Goes to Richest 0.25%
(David Kay--NYT)

[Earners of over $1 million/year,] who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.
People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003...
So less than one-quarter of one percent of all taxpayers took in almost 50 percent of the nation's revenues revenue gain. And what about the little guy? Screwed, as you would suspect.

Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money...
Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.

So who's being disingenuous, Terry?

As for your recommendation to trash one of the worlds most pristine wildlife habitations (ANWAR) for a few months supply of oil, or despoil the areas around our national parks with oil derricks--no thanks, T.D.

"On this topic, I know [of] what I speak." Why don't you put all that financial training of yours to good use and whip up a cost-benefit analysis of the Iraq War, you arrogant jerk.

dt

Here's a funny bit about some of Terry's financial heros.

Krugman, of course, is no Terry, but it's worth a look...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html?ref=opinion

dts,

Riddle me this - If the highest tyax rate was 100% how much tax would the rich pay? Would that you make you happy?

Tax rates were cut across the board.

As far as a cost analysis of the war:

In March, 2003 most politicians of both parties thought that Sadaam had WMDs. How much danmagae to our economy would have occurred if a second 9-11 or a chemical attack on our country occurred. Just think how much money would be saved if Bill Clinton took out Osama when he had the chance.

As far as ANWAR

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html

As far as arrogance, Dizzy Dean once said " It ain't braggin', if you can back it up"

Ter,

That's the best you've got, it was Clinton's fault? What was the frat boy-in-chief doing for 9-months before 9/11 while his own intelligence people were warning him of an impending attack?

Chemical attacks? Russia has more nasty biological weapons and chemical weapons than anybody, shall we invade them next?

That would still leave those pesky domestic terrorists like Timothy Mcveigh. Fertilizer, the next WMD.

Yeah, Bush's excellent adventure into Iraq has been a real bargain, TD. Hundreds of thousands of casualties, a trillion dollar war, $12 billion a month and no end in sight. It must be nice being part of the M.I.C., that is, if you have no conscience.

Dizzy Dean--One colorful character, and I love baseball. But I'm a Giants fan, and besides, those "bring 'em on" type boast can backfire, just ask Dubya. I prefer more reasoned council, like the words of Kerry Livgre (Kansas)..."If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know."
Of course, humility isn't part of the Cowboy-Bush-crowd lexicon and look where all their hubris has gotten us.

Anyway, TD, I'm fairly confident that the American people have had enough of the neocon experiment. Next November we're putting all you flat-earthers on waivers. Enjoy the plunder while you can. Happy Hanukkah, friend.

"Riddle me this - If the highest tyax rate was 100% how much tax would the rich pay? Would that you make you happy?"

Terry,

The tax rate is not important; it's how much income can be sheltered through loopholes.

EG; A man makes $10,000,000 per year, but shelters 100% of it. If the Tax rate is %100 he pays nothing.

dts,

First, it was less than 8 moths if you do the math. JOhn E can help you with that.

As far as I know, Russia had nothing to do w/ Islamic terrorist like Saddam did - rewarding the families of suicide bombers.

Please show me the math on the trillion dollar war.

As far as the "neocon experiment" (part of the great right-wing conspiracy), let's go back to the days where Americans around the world are the targets of terrorist - USS Cole, Kohbar twoers, African embassies.

Piece of financial advice - invest in prayer rugs.

ISn't Hanukkah over?

AAroo - please show me the specific shelter you are talking about. Anyway, either way the gov't gets no money wheteher your alleged tax shelter exists or not. If the tax shelter does not exist, then the $10 million would never have been earned since there was no incentive.

TheReamer,

The bottom line for me, (in the aftermath) After my property taxes went through the roof in August. Statistics that measure the relative state of the housing industry confirmed that the local market was now, belatedly, feeling the effects of the national mortgage crisis. We could expect the value of homes in our zip code to depreciate by 30%, we were told.

I already suspected as much. Where homes in my neighborhood had been selling in days, now they were sitting and sitting and sitting. A house around the corner from me that listed for $575,000 has been reduced to $450,000 and still no takers. I never celebrated the irrational rise in home prices, anyway. If you don't plan on selling anytime soon, all it means is higher taxes. Now, with the timing of things, my taxes are considerably higher, the value of my home, not so much. I live in the reddest of states, a one-party state, can't blame it on the democrats, there aren't any, to speak of.

That won't stop Tricke-down from trying to lay the sub-prime mess on Clinton or the ignorant masses. Yeah, it's all buyer beware with Terry (until the fall-out affects his own investments).

That's the way it is with all these unfettered capitalism worshipers, the market can do no wrong... till things go to sh#t and then they want a government bail-out.

Here's some of Terry's flippant remarks about a topic of which "I know what I speak":

Dodd backs lending reforms
by David Lightman

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd today proposed a sweeping set of changes aimed at helping high-risk borrowers deal with predatory lenders.

Here's some reform - Consumers get educated, know what you sign!

Posted by: Terry | September 5, 2007 6:27 PM

Here's some reform - Consumers get educated, know what you sign!

Posted by: Terry | September 5, 2007 6:27 PM

So if sub-prime loans were crack you'd say dangerous drugs are o.k., educate yourself about their dangers and avoid them. Legalize drugs, don't regulate or penalize the dealers, is that it? Fine, as long as the lenders and investors don't get bailed out either.

Posted by: dt | September 5, 2007 9:32 PM

dt,

I haven't seen anybody die yet from a sub-prime loan have you?

So dt wants crack legalized?

Posted by: Terry | September 5, 2007 10:30 PM

In answer to the dying part, Terry, it usually manifest itself when financial advisers like yourself, put a gun to their mouth or take that leap from the 13th floor. In Terry's world, greed is good...until it isn't. Keep smokin' the crack, friendo.

Terry!
Everyone knows the rich control Amerika and get any tax shelter they wish, numb nts!

Aaroo,

I must say I agree with Terry on this one, my good man. The rich need protection from the rabble out there. They, the rich, righteous Christian men stand naked before the power of the low classes.

Given any actual power at the polls, they will vote in Stalinism!

My father was in a so called 'Teachers Union' so I know of what I speak! To this day I mourn my childhood and upbringing. It was strictly 'liberool', with all the good table manners, etc, to match. It's a G-- given miracle I survived.

dt,
I believe the likes of Terry and his ilk should be repressed via some governmental agency, the likes of which has never been seen!!

dt,
I believe the likes of John D, and his ilk should be repressed via some governmental agency, the likes of which has never been seen!!

Terry,

Didn't frat boy-in-chief get intelligence briefings in December to prepare him for, you know, the threat of bin Laden? (Where is Mr. Wanted dead or alive, anyway?). Didn't Dubya have access to intelligence on Al Qaeda as President- appointed by the Supreme Court? And there was always Daddy Bush, former Pres. and CIA main man to bring Jr. up to speed. But then, his priorities were elsewhere:

Simply put, terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration during the first nine months of 2001. As former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks in 2004: "To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you."

Clarke served as a White House counter-terrorism official in three presidential administrations.

The truth is that the administration received warnings about al-Qaeda's intentions to use jetliners as bombs in August 2001, but it was too busy obsessing about a war with Iraq to take action. Although President Bush has maintained over the years that terrorism was his number one priority before 9/11, evidence suggests otherwise.

A little known article in the January 11, 2001, edition of the New York Times titled "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets with Joint Chiefs" confirms that the administration was more interested in toppling Saddam Hussein than dealing with the growing threat of domestic terrorism.

"As far as I know, Russia had nothing to do w/ Islamic terrorist like Saddam did - rewarding the families of suicide bombers."

Oh, so that's the neocons' latest iteration of why we were justified in invading Iraq.

I wonder who armed and trained the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? You know, the Jhihaddist that evolved into al-Qeada?

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3
The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Terry--you wan't the math on the Trillion dollar war? I apologize, I was a little conservative, it's the TWO Trillion Dollar War and the source Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics and professor of economics at Columbia University. Admittingly, his creditials pale in comparison to "I know what I speak" Trickle-down Terry, but just the same...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12855294/national_affairs_the_2_trillion_dollar_war

And Terry's little tax riddle suggest Exxon et. al. won't have enough incentive to produce with their tremendous tax burden. Exxon Mobil only earned $39.5 billion in 2006, can't wait to see their haul this year. Let's all cry a tear for Terry's employer.

LoudTalker,

That is not the way to intervene! Please, some manners.

Terry,
You are, however, intractable, and somewhat passive aggressive. I think you need, minimally, some kind of therapy to gain some insights into the human condition.

My experience on a communal farm in Canada in the late sixties and my year in that free clinic in Santa Fe taught me something about the human spirit, and your spirit, sir, needs healed.

Please, go in peace, harmony, and well being.

LoudTalker,

That is not the way to intervene! Please, some manners.

Terry,
You are, however, intractable, and somewhat passive aggressive. I think you need, minimally, some kind of therapy to gain some insights into the human condition.

My experience on a communal farm in Canada in the late sixties and my year in that free clinic in Santa Fe taught me something about the human spirit, and your spirit, sir, needs healed.

Please, go in peace, harmony, and well being.

"If the tax shelter does not exist, then the $10 million would never have been earned since there was no incentive.
Posted by: Terry | December 22, 2007 5:41 PM"

At least, Terry, you admit the tax laws are biased in favor of the millionaires!

Swampers, pay no attention to TrickleDown Boy

Terry is a Wall Street whore whose only goal is to keep the criminal Repubs in power so that he and the other fat rich white guys can continue to get big tax cuts while the middle class and the poor continue to suffer?.

I see the Karl Marx support group met in here this evening.

dts,

As far as the sub-prime mess. Who signed the contract? The home buyer and the mortgage company - let them deal with the mess they made.

My guess is bin Laden is holed up in some cave at about 20,000 feet.

Richard Clarke - you mean Bill Clinton's chief counter-terrorism adviser.

Was terrorism a priority for the Clinton Administartion? I don't think so, or all those attacks on American tagerts would not have happened.

And you suggesstion in 2001 would have been do what???

Wasn't Iraq Bill Clinton's obsession - at least for a few days. Why did he bomb Iraq in Dec, 1998?

As far as who trained the Mujahideen? Wasn't it Tom Hanks, I mean Charlie Wilson?

As far as the spending on the Iraq war, I believe the answer is $400 billion according to your article. The future spending as propsed by your "leading economist" is conjecture. If you use that logic then we are still paying for WW2 since we still haves bases in Germany and Japan. Was that worth the cost, considering Germany never invaded us? How about the cost of the Korean War and the cost of the 30,000 troops we have had there for decades?

Finally, Exxon-Mobil and their $40 billions in earnings. Why don't you look and see how much they made in taxes and then tell me who earned more from Exxon-Mobil - the gov't or their shareholders - the ones who took the risk. Secons, who had the better ROI - Exxon-Mobil or Starbucks?

How do you figure Exxon-Mobil is my employer? By what means of your superior intellgence did you deduce that?

dts ,my observation is that you are back on the sauce.

Lennon Sisters - Another liberal for personal freedom.

Flower Power - Pass the doobie.

Flower Power - Pass the doobie.

Aaroo - tax laws are written for those that pay taxes.

Terry,
Have you no criticism for Prof. Stiglitz? He used GAAP and everything to arrive at the "true" cost of the Iraq war. What was it you said:

"Back to the original point, the gov't does not have to recognize future liabilities, such as pensions unlike the private corpoartions" [corporations].

So there you go, TD. Dr. Stiglitz figured in future liabilities, such as the government's est. future cost to care for soldiers minus limbs and/or with scrambled eggs for brains.

BTW- Hanukkah started on Dec. 4th. this year. Last year it was Dec. 15, next year Dec. 21. You might want to "Google" that exemplary bunch of Democrats over at Google and double-check, though.

Terry - Why do you approve of raping America for your personal profit (tax cuts for the rich)?...I hope you fall face first on your pocket protecter you little, halliburton, blackwater, big oil loving piece of anti-American crap.

"Terry's Heroes"
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk88%2FDuke_S%2Fgop.jpg&searchTerm=gop&pageOffset=11

"As far as the sub-prime mess. Who signed the contract? The home buyer and the mortgage company - let them deal with the mess they made."

That's what I heard during the Savings and Loan disaster, if only...

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/46155/

"My guess is bin Laden is holed up in some cave at about 20,000 feet."

Whether he is or not, he's the one responsible for 9/11 and he's still flipping us the bird at every opportunity thanks to the botched effort at Tora Bora and the distraction of Iraq. Al Qeada influence is growing in Pakistan as well.

From the article above: Clarke served as a White House counter-terrorism official in three presidential administrations.
(including Dubya's)

"Wasn't Iraq Bill Clinton's obsession -at least for a few days. Why did he bomb Iraq in Dec, 1998"?

According to Thomas Ricks (Fiasco), and captured Iraqi scientist and workers, Clinton's little cruise missile party was successful in largely persuading Iraq to abandon its WMD programs. Plus Bubba didn't invade Iraq and we aren't still paying for it.

"And you suggesstion in 2001 would have been do what???"

Focus all our energies on bin Laden and Afghanistan. Iraq made no sense, the sanctions were working. Should have kept our eye on the ball, Dizzy.

"Was terrorism a priority for the Clinton Administration? I don't think so, or all those attacks on American targets would not have happened."

Terrorist attacks have occurred against U.S. targets through the last several administrations, Marines in Beirut, Oklahoma City, WTC I. If you want to blame the intelligence community, go ahead. They did after all miss the impending fall of the Soviet Union. But you can't in fairness single out Clinton. And 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch no matter how you try to spin it.

The cost of the Iraq War-- spare me the bogus WWII analogies. Japan (part of the Axis) invaded a U.S. possession and we were forced into that war. Did Iraq have a navy, air force, missiles that were a credible threat to us? No. There are a half dozen countries that are a greater potential threat to the U.S., including Pakistan. And you have my blessing to eliminate bases and bring home troops from Japan, Korea, and Germany at any time.

As for conjecture on the future cost of the Iraq War...first, the current cost of Bush's excellent adventure (about $480 billion)

http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar

This part of the "conjecture" is likely to increase:

"It also includes losses the economy will suffer from injured vets ($355 billion) and higher oil prices ($450 billion).
Gotta like BushCo's est. though, that the war will practically pay for itself in oil revenue.

"Finally, Exxon-Mobil and their $40 billions in earnings. Why don't you look and see how much they made in taxes and then tell me who earned more from Exxon-Mobil - the gov't or their shareholders - the ones who took the risk. Secons, who had the better ROI - Exxon-Mobil or Starbucks?

I'd say the CEO's:

Exxon Mobil CEO Lee R. Raymond’s retirement in January 2006 coincided with record profits for Exxon Mobil. On retirement, Raymond was entitled to receive an estimated annual retirement benefit of over $8 million.[1] He choose instead to take a lump sum payment of $98 million.[2] Raymond will also get an administrative assistant, company-provided life insurance, a car, driver, and airplane use for two years.[3]

Starbucks sucks, Peets rules, I'll be off the sauce as soon as this nightmare administration goes back to the ranch.

P.S.--More good news for the market, bubble-boy:

Bear Stearns Cos. said Thursday a bigger-than-expected writedown in its mortgage portfolio caused the nation's fifth-largest U.S. investment bank to post the first loss in its 84-year history.

"As far as the sub-prime mess. Who signed the contract? The home buyer and the mortgage company - let them deal with the mess they made."

But who caused the harm, Grasshopper?

dts,

He used "GAAP" based upon his assumptions. Before I'll critize the prof, I'll want to see his assumptions first. Ask the prof what the true cost of WW2 was - put that in today's dollars for comparison sake. If you want the true cost of WW2 - don't forget the GI Bill. Also, don't forget the cost to corporations that started offering fringe benefits to its employees , since they couldn't give them wage raises.

You wished me Happy Hanukkah this year, not in 2005 & 2006.

S & L fiasco - the only bailout that should have taken place was for the depositers that had their money in the S & L's, not the S & L execs.

Clarke was promoted to CHEIF counter-terrorism expert under Bill. He was a gov't employee for 30 years.

If MR. Ricks stmt was true, why were democratic leaders still saying that Saddam had WMD's during 1999 & 2000?

What does the CEO's salary have to do with anything? Do I think its excessive? Probably. However, its not my problem. That's between the shareholders, board and the CEO.

That lump-sum payment is a discounted settlement of the future payments the corpoartion would owe him.

Bear-Stearns is just applying LCM acctng principles. You buy high and the value drops, you have to take write-downs. I'm glad to see bad economic news makes you so happy.

Gil Thorpe - stick with coaching. How do you make these leaps of illogic?

FLower-Power - Who caused the harm? They both did, they both should pay, not the innocent taxpayers like you and me.

"FLower-Power - Who caused the harm? They both did, they both should pay, not the innocent taxpayers like you and me.

Posted by: Terry | December 23, 2007 12:12 PM"

Oh, but innocent one, we all pay as we write....

Have a serene solstice my friend. I worry for your well being and personal karma halo.

Terry,
Re. B.S.--bad economic news doesn't make me happy, shrinking 401's don't make me happy. Just making the point that not everyone who suffers the fallout from sub-prime mess were made aware that parts of their investment portfolios were being vested in risky sub primes. You expect the folks at B.S. to know better.

If all the foreign investors that got burned by the Sub-prime mess (like China) pulled out their investments as a result, we all suffer the credit crunch, not just the banks and individual investors. What makes you think you're insulated?

I know what LSP is, he isn't worth it, no CEO is. It may not be your problem, but it is to workers like Delta Employees who are told they have to take three pay cuts and lose benefits while the management walks off with their golden parachutes. Your a real compassionate guy, Ter.

Ricks and WMD's-They weren't, and neither were Dubya's people like I explained to you earlier:

Terry...about those WMD's and who was quoting what:

(eriposte)

On the June 15 [2003] Meet the Press, Wesley Clark offered an intriguing thought about those AWOL WMD:

RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?

CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways.

George Tenet in a report to Congress in Feb. 2001 (from raw story):

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs...

Tenet also continued that sentence with "...although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely." But the basic point is that even if Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs or WMD programs in 1998, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Iraq's WMD facilities destroyed them at that time (which would require the need to "reconstitute"). So, using the "same" intelligence from 1998 to go to war in 2003 would be the most blatant form of fraud.

George Bush, 10/11/00:

We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president.

Colin Powell, 2/24/01:

...the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they [the U.N. sanctions] have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

And what about Scott Ritter's version of events? Ritter, who Bush's people tried to discredit, is an ex- Marine who fought in the Gulf War. He went on to become an intelligence specialist and U.N. inspector. By his account, over the seven years of the program, he and other inspectors were able to confirm that Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs were effectively destroyed.

Posted by: dt | November 28, 2007 11:59 PM

S&L-Tell Neil Bush we taxpayers want our billion back.

The cost of war, yeah Terry, the costs of all wars go on and on and on. That's why intelligent people don't rush in to unnecessary wars like Bush did in Iraq. And it's even more insulting when people like you try to compare the two, as if the situation or the threat of the Axis powers in WWII were in any way similar.

And you wonder why we don't trust republican chickenhawks to govern our country?

But I am impressed my your "I've got mine so F.U." mentality, TD. You make a fine Republican, all we've come to expect.

Flower-Power,

If such a thing as karma exist, I fear there are black clouds forming around TD's head.

In some ways Terry resembles the character of Scrooge..."a cold-hearted, tight fisted, selfish man." Yeah, that's our Terry, the maestro of misanthropy. Bah, humbug!, TD.

Flower Power,

Don't waste your time or compassion on Trickle-down. I visited him already, he told me to Cheney! Cheney? Anyway he'll be a room mate of mine soon.

FP,

I worry that I have to pay your welfare check.

FLower-Power - Who caused the harm? They both did, they both should pay, not the innocent taxpayers like you and me.

Posted by: Terry | December 23, 2007 12:12 PM

In a perfect world, maybe. But there's such a thing as collateral damage, Terry. It happens in finance and in war. But you keep those blinders on, Terry, that's what "compassionate conservatives" do.

Exibit A as to why Republicans can't govern, TD Terry.

"For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright, who art as black as hell, and dark as night."--Shakespeare

dts,

I would expect the folks at BS to know better. They took a risk and they paid a price. Folks, that's capitalism.

I don't think I'm insulated from this mess. The next time I need a loan in the near future, I ill probably pay a higher rate because of this, even though I have perfect credit. That's life. The choice I'll make at that time is the additional cost going to stop me from making the purchase or downgrade my purchase.

The pay of a CEO is the business of the shareholders, not the general public; i.e., the gov't.

WMD quotes:

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

BTW, if those weapons had been destroyed in Dec 1998, all Saddam had to do was show the proof they had been destroyed (UN REsolution 1441) and all of this would have been avoided.

I agree Neil Bush shouldn't have gotten his bailout.

The cost of war does go on; however, that cost pales incomparison to teh cost of entitlements such as social security, medicare, perscription drugs, universal healthcare, etc...

But I am impressed my your "I can't get mine, so I'll take yours" mentality. You make a fine democrat, all we've come to expect.

Duck,

If we bail out the lendwers and the lendees, will that stop future risky behavior?

The Anonymous post above are from Terry.

"The cost of war does go on; however, that cost pales incomparison to teh cost of entitlements such as social security, medicare, perscription drugs, universal healthcare, etc...

Terry,
But those items are for the greater good, unlike the Iraq war.

Aaaroo,

Those costs (social security, medicare, perscription drugs, universal healthcare) are for the greater good of making the American populace more dependant on the gov't.

Is the war on terror in Afghanistan for the greater good?

How about the first Gulf War? VietNam? Korean War? were these wars for the "greater good"?

Terry,

I'm not anti-capitalist, markets can work well as long as there's an even playing field. When there isn't, as is often the case, they need oversight. The kind of oversight the SEC didn't provide when Harken tubed and Dubya used his insider knowledge to bail, rather than go down with the sinking ship.

I can't just shrug off the injustice and say, "that's life". Some of those investors propped up Harken to get access to Bush, they just blew off their losses as the price of buying Bush. They don't need our pity, just our contempt, but what about the rest?

http://books.google.com/books?id=LFgl1_k2iawC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=who+financed+harken&source=web&ots=K7gZ27XOE1&sig=8GDCEvyP5J8SOYNe11pAnCwoJRA#PPP2,M1

"But I am impressed my your "I can't get mine, so I'll take yours" mentality. You make a fine democrat, all we've come to expect."

You guys kill me. You think that because we have a social conscience we're all stupid, lazy and out of work. You also think we live for government handouts.

I paid income taxes, mostly in the higher brackets, and payroll taxes for over 40 years. I've never been unemployed, even when I was in school full-time. I was able to retire in comfort, not a third home in Aspen comfort, but we have everything we need.

But I'm not oblivious to what goes on around me. I see good people, hard-working people suffer misfortune that is not of their doing. Some people get help from their family, some people from church organizations, but many fall through the cracks. I don't believe in social Darwinism, I don't believe the market can cure all ills, like you do.

I have a neighbor up the street who has cancer and is being treated with Hospice care through Medicare. He worked as a gardener till he was 75, then fell too ill to do what he loved. He lived a modest life, saved what he could, but now has trouble making ends meet. Do you feel "cheated" that your tax dollars are helping him live the rest of his remaining days in comfort"? Do you feel cheated that his wife is getting Social Security to help ease the burden of caring for her invalid husband? I don't?

Wars are sometimes necessary, many are not. Vietnam and Iraq fall in the later territory. WWII and Afghanistan in the former.

Just because Saddam was recalcitrant, we never came close to exhausting our options there. Bush was looking for an excuse to invade, that's why he cherry-picked and cooked the intel. Bush could have invaded Iran and N.Korea for the same reasons he used to invade Iraq. I'd rather our tax dollars go to constructive domestic programs than "shock and awe".

"Those costs (social security, medicare, perscription drugs, universal healthcare) are for the greater good of making the American populace more dependant on the gov't."

The PD program was pushed through by Bush to get the senior vote and to repay the Pharmaceutical Industry for their support (no negotiated price breaks). And BushCo lied about the projected cost, they knew they would be much higher (a $100 billion higher) and witheld the cost est. in order to secure the votes of 13 convervative Republicans who balked at any figure about $400 billion. You still voted for him after that, right?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0312-01.htm

Gotta go now Ter. We have Christmas eve plans with our neighbors. One's a retired professional basketball player and current P.T. Another is an attorney who manages a large law firm. One is an air-traffic controller, another a social worker. The common thread, all of them are democrats, none of them "can't get mine, so I'll take yours", all of them give a crap about the less fortunate in this country. All of them think that this country, under Bush, has lost it's soul. That's why we will do our best to keep blood-suckers like you from controlling the country.

Merry Christmas, Terry and welcome to the new China:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/a/2007/12/19/notes121907.DTL

P.S. A recalcitrant Santa is rumoured to be sending bin Laden a few crates of RPG's for Christmas, but won't give up the location of his cache. Recommend "shock and awe" for the North Pole. Elves and reindeer are expendable. Oil liberated beneath the ice by our bunker-busters will pay for everything--Dick Cheney.

Trickle Down,

You don't believe in man-made Global Warming despite the obvious and overwhelming scientific proof that supports it, therefore you are not worhty of a present this year.

You compare the recessionary period of the early 90's(second largest in US history next to the Great Depression) to the tiny recessionary period post- Clinton as one in the same, therefore you are not only partisan and pathetic, you will be lucky to get a lump of coal. Then again, I guess apples and oranges are both fruit.

You attribute the greatest economic expansion in the history of this country during the Clinton Administration to nothing more than Venture Capitalists and Dot Com voodoo magic, therefore I take it back, you get no coal.

I just wish Bryan and Tony would come back and start smacking you around like a couple of alley cats with a brained mouse. Then again, you can't even handle someone called Flower Power.

Merry Christmas.

ps, There was never a war on Christmas.

Terry,
Possibly GWI and maybe Korea, but that is iffy. Most war are a mistake. GHWB agent passed an ambiguous statement on to Saddam's people giving a false green light.
These people are incompetent, most of them. Criky, you could do a better job.

VN, definitely not. More lies, from all of them, Truman thru Nixon.

Terry,
Possibly GWI and maybe Korea, but that is iffy. Most war are a mistake. GHWB agent passed an ambiguous statement on to Saddam's people giving a false green light.
These people are incompetent, most of them. Criky, you could do a better job.

VN, definitely not. More lies, from all of them, Truman thru Nixon.

Terry,
Possibly GWI and maybe Korea, but that is iffy. Most war are a mistake. GHWB agent passed an ambiguous statement on to Saddam's people giving a false green light.
These people are incompetent, most of them. Criky, you could do a better job.

Of course, the Afg. War, apparently necessary, has been neglected and mishandled.

VN, definitely not. More lies, from all of them, Truman thru Nixon.