Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why? Cuts in military spending?

No, because I believe the bloated budgets were an attempted to buy votes. I don't believe it will continue to bolster the next VPs chances. Maybe wishful thinking.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you really think that Bush will work to rein in Congressional spending if there's no reelection campaign hanging over his head?

I don't blame congress for the bloated budgets, as much as I blame Bush. The highway bill is an exception.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club's cite pointed out that the wholesale price rebounded within days. You have posted something suggesting that retail prices were lower 40 days later. What you posted doesn't remotely suggest that the lower gas prices in early November had anything to do with the release from the strategic reserve.

First of all, I am not Club's sock so don't mix in what he says with what I say.

Second, I think Club was talking about the wholesale price of oil. I am talking about the retail price of gasoline. So why are you mixing what I say with what Club says?

Third, I didn't make up this 40 day rule. Google it and I am sure that you will find out that it takes about 40 days for a change in the wholesale price of oil to be reflected in the retail price of gasoline. My guess is that must be about the time it takes to refine and distribute it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, because I believe the bloated budgets were an attempted to buy votes. I don't believe it will continue to bolster the next VPs chances. Maybe wishful thinking.

It's a fundamental unwillingness to make hard choices and show leadership. Setting aside the entirety of his domestic spending, Bush wants to lead the country in war, but cannot ask the country to pay the financial price for it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a fundamental unwillingness to make hard choices and show leadership. Setting aside the entirety of his domestic spending, Bush wants to lead the country in war, but cannot ask the country to pay the financial price for it.

Reducing taxes stimulates the economy leading to a larger tax base and higher revenues. If all voters understood this, we would have a more informed electorate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
First of all, I am not Club's sock so don't mix in what he says with what I say.

I'm sorry I confused you by referring to a fact in one of club's posts. You were telling me to watch FOX News, so I thought his facts from FOX News were fair game.

Second, I think Club was talking about the wholesale price of oil. I am talking about the retail price of gasoline. So why are you mixing what I say with what Club says?

Most people understand that wholesale and retail prices of a good are related.

Third, I didn't make up this 40 day rule. Google it and I am sure that you will find out that it takes about 40 days for a change in the wholesale price of oil to be reflected in the retail price of gasoline. My guess is that must be about the time it takes to refine and distribute it.

You just made it up now. That article says nada about a 40-day rule. It says gas prices dropped in California in early November, 2000.

Retail gas prices are notoriously slow to drop when wholesale prices fall. The SF Chronicle notes this ever other week in their regular stories about high gas prices. For this reason, I find it very hard to believe that a blip of a couple days in the price of oil had any effect on the price at the pump. You're just posting with a shovel.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
No, because I believe the bloated budgets were an attempted to buy votes.

And you think Kerry won't spend even more?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And you think Kerry won't spend even more?

No. I am certain Kerry WILL spend even more.

eta: Don't worry Slave. There is ZERO chance I will vote for Kerry.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't blame congress for the bloated budgets, as much as I blame Bush. The highway bill is an exception.

I am impressed by your candor.

But...here's the $.64 question: how is it that your displeasure with Bush's bloated budgets (by which I assume you mean spending) seems to have no effect on your view of the appropriateness of the tax cuts in '02 and '03? Doesn't one affect the other?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I am impressed by your candor.

We Reps have repeatedly demonstrated our willingness to put partisanship aside and to stand up for our principles.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But...here's the $.64 question: how is it that your displeasure with Bush's bloated budgets (by which I assume you mean spending) seems to have no effect on your view of the appropriateness of the tax cuts in '02 and '03? Doesn't one affect the other?

When taxes are cut, it stimulates the economy and this leads to larger revenues. Get it now?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I am impressed by your candor.

But...here's the $.64 question: how is it that your displeasure with Bush's bloated budgets (by which I assume you mean spending) seems to have no effect on your view of the appropriateness of the tax cuts in '02 and '03? Doesn't one affect the other?

Yes, but you have it backwards in my opinion - Sidd and I have had this debate multiple times. I don't look at spending and then figure out how much we need to tax. I look at the "appropriate" level of tax and figure out how much we have to spend.

[Not Me]

So Ty, did the unnamed "senior officials" that the unnamed source alleged authorized the prisoner abuse tell their underlings to pose for pics like this?

http://abcnews.go.com/media/World/im...040519_ssv.jpg
[SPREE - dead guy]

The guy in the picture is dead. Why would they authorize this?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but you have it backwards in my opinion - Sidd and I have had this debate multiple times. I don't look at spending and then figure out how much we need to tax. I look at the "appropriate" level of tax and figure out how much we have to spend.

As a broad conceptual statement this doesn't make much sense to me. You set the tax rate at x based on some intrinsic appropriateness, and then fit spending under the functional income limits that that tax rate creates? What if the tax is too small to pay for the programs you want (and despite the dirty liberal word "programs" I do mean the stuff you want, like the Iraq project, and not the stuff Dems like me want, like free massages for welfare moms)? Are we stuck with deficits until the spending needs decrease on their own?

You seem to stand the notion of taxation on its head. We don't spend because we have to tax; we tax because we have to spend. Aside from that, in the absence of spending data how can you ever justify a tax that is not zer.....oh wait....I think I get you now...

[Not Me]

at least not when US military planes are overhead

[Say_hello_for_me]

Mixed about this stuff. As much as I respect the NYPD leadership the last few years, I know that emergency (immediate) disaster response in this country is largely a bad joke. Key to understanding what I'm saying is the word "disaster" as compared to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary emergencies in this country every day.

Anyway, rivalry between a big-city Police and Fire department is not unusual. The fact that NYC as of late has still not sorted out who would really be in charge the next time (or the fact that almost nobody in this country is qualified to be in charge of both firemen and law enforement simultaneously), is not exactly a setup for glowing reviews of yesterday's witnesses. A few of these arrogant motherfuckers deserve Lehman's criticism which (to me) is really directed at their petty BS rivalries.

This stuff came before Rudy, existed under Rudy and (way more shamefully) still exists today.

I have a close friend who is one step below the top-level of emergency response in one of America's largest cities (guess which one, e.g., Coltrane!). He's in an upper-level position at an agency that would coordinate first-line responses in a disaster. Not so long ago I asked him if his agency had ever done coordinated simulations on the Police and Fire plans in the event of a disaster on the scale of 9/11. His response? These plans (which would, by their very nature be voluminous and require intense familiarity at command levels) are on a need-to-know basis. Outside the FD, nobody needs to know. Outside the PD, nobody needs to know. Inside the FD and the PD, nobody really knows who knows, so nobody knows who to call, or who is in charge, when the big one hits.

Does the media in your city ever ask about the response plans for the next 9/11? If not, now would be a great moment to start the inquiries. Because I guarantee you, 95% of the 100 largest cities in this country, do not have a plan, and couldn't coordinate between two agencies if 3000 lives depended on it.

So today I say, kudos to former Secretary of the Navy Lehman. It takes quite a bit of nerve to call a spade a spade in the context the NYPD and the NYFD, but its the only way these important issues will ever be addressed in the cities who need to prepare for the next one.

And fuck Von Essen's horse too.

Hello