Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No. Reagan was in a far different position, because the GOP didn't have control of Congress. He wanted far more cuts than he actually got, but had to compromise with Tip in order to get a deal done.

I'm trying to leave early today. Anyone else want to take this one?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

But I don't think emphasis on tax cuts for the rich is really where it's at. It's emphasis of tax cuts at the highest rates, which is where the rich are. I don't think you'd see this group arguing for an inverted tax system.

Really? Then explain the indomitable dreive for repeal of the estate tax and for repeal of the tax on capital gains. That's an inverted tax system, no two ways about it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Really? Then explain the indomitable dreive for repeal of the estate tax and for repeal of the tax on capital gains. That's an inverted tax system, no two ways about it.

Estate tax: Why is this supported as much (if not more) by people who are unlikely ever to be subject ot it? What's more, the most realisitic proposals would likely simply raise the limits of the exemption. That is, lower the rates to zero for a larger group of people, while leaving the higher rate on the rich.

K-gains: See the rest of my post--it's an effort to increase incentives to save. What's more, the k-gains rate for low-income people is lower than for high-income people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, the executive branch proposes, the legislative branch disposes. The WH proposed supporting troops with additional funds. 78 senators agreed with the WH. Kerry did not.

If you think that's how the Constitution works, I'm thinking you not only didn't take con law, you also never watched Schoolhouse Rock.

Even so, you've got it partly right. Everyone agreed that four months later, more money would be needed to pay for troops. The White House wanted to pay for this one way. Kerry wanted to pay for it another way. More senators agreed with the White House.

None of this means, though, that Kerry opposed spending money on the troops, as conservatives are suggesting. It just means that he wanted to pay for it by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. There's no question in my mind that most voters would agree with Kerry about this, so I can understand why conservatives are trying to muddy these waters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But its not part of the war on terrorism Hank. Sure SH was a bad man, but there's just simply no connection between Iraq and terrorism.

It's nice to know that the bullshit that Cheney was slinging before the war still works on you. The "connection" was with Ansar al-Islam, which was the terrorist group operating in the part of Northern Iraq outside of Hussein's control. You know -- the group whose camp the Pentagon wanted to bomb, only to be stopped by the White House for fear that support for the war would drop if we killed the terrorists Cheney was busy scaring people with.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Therefore, your criticism of Kerry's vote is rather like some GOP loyalist criticizing you (as a California resident) for voting Libertarian in the Presidential election in December (i.e. it doesn't make a damn bit of difference).

That's not even the best comparison. Suppose that the Navy is considering whether to build two aircraft carriers or three. Everyone agrees that at least two will be built. The leadership wants two, so they bring that bill up first. Senator Warmonger wants to build three, so he votes against the bill for two, so that it will fail and he can get a vote on the bill for three. Only a moron would accuse Senator Warmonger in these circumstances of being anti-defense spending.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
None of this means, though, that Kerry opposed spending money on the troops, as conservatives are suggesting. It just means that he wanted to pay for it by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. There's no question in my mind that most voters would agree with Kerry about this, so I can understand why conservatives are trying to muddy these waters.

You act as though this was some principled stand. Bullshit. He needed cover to compete with Dean and this was a convenient way to get it. I'm not suggesting that the troops were ever in jeopardy. What I am suggesting is that Kerry's vote against the $87 million had no relation to the merits. He would have found a way to vote no, no matter what the package had been. So in that way, he chose Kerry over the troops.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's nice to know that the bullshit that Cheney was slinging before the war still works on you. The "connection" was with Ansar al-Islam, which was the terrorist group operating in the part of Northern Iraq outside of Hussein's control. You know -- the group whose camp the Pentagon wanted to bomb, only to be stopped by the White House for fear that support for the war would drop if we killed the terrorists Cheney was busy scaring people with.

Do you read the posts. Hank was referring to the new information found in Iraq which lead to the arrests in NY.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You act as though this was some principled stand. Bullshit. He needed cover to compete with Dean and this was a convenient way to get it. I'm not suggesting that the troops were ever in jeopardy. What I am suggesting is that Kerry's vote against the $87 million had no relation to the merits. He would have found a way to vote no, no matter what the package had been. So in that way, he chose Kerry over the troops.

Even if we accept the premise here, the last sentence does not follow for the reasons that several people here have explained but which you are evidently too obtuse to understand. The troops were going to be funded in any event. The only question was how.

That said, you have evidently decided that Kerry is incapable of acting on principle, and instead is a craven political opportunist, and are willing to fit anything he does into that simple framework. He served two tours of duty on small boats in Vietnam -- opportunism! Led war protests -- opportunism! And so on, right down the line. Doubtless there's a grain of truth here, as there is with any politician, but hardly more so than with any other politician. And in this particular case, I'm just not seeing the Dean thing. I followed the primaries, and I don't remember this vote. Kerry beat Dean not by copying his opposition to the war on Iraq, but by pointing to his appeal to moderates (his so-called electability) and by reaching voters in Iowa on other issues (see the Oliphant piece). Which is to say that the simple template you insist on fitting Kerry's actions into fits especially poorly here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you read the posts. Hank was referring to the new information found in Iraq which lead to the arrests in NY.

Did you read the article he linked to? It refers to new information found at an Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq. If you've been reading posts on this board for the past several months, you would know that the Administration keeps referring to the fact that they were operating "in Iraq" while omitting the fact that it was a part of Iraq outside of Hussein's control. Oh yes -- they were also touting the fact that Zarqawi had his leg amputed in Baghdad as a sign of collaboration between Ansar al-Islam and the Ba'athist regime, but shut up about this once the videos of Zarqawi made clear that he still has both legs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It's past 11:00 a.m. here on the Left Coast, and we're still waiting for an update from club about the new job data. At least he's busy.

eta

DeLong:

• It is worth noting that the administration's forecast, made last winter, was that by this time payroll employment would be at 132.8 million--not the 131.3 million that it is actually at. Somebody should ask Bush todaywhat has gone so unexpectedly wrong to put employment 1.5 million lower than expectations in just half a year.
  
  And somebody else should ask Bush today why he adopted a "jobs and growth" program of shifting taxes from the present into the future that got us only about half the bang per buck of deficit that we would have received from a normal Keynesian fiscal stimulus program. He didn't make the lousy labor market. But he and his team sure did pass up a lot of chances to buy insurance against the bizarrely weak job market we now find ourselves in.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's past 11:00 a.m. here on the Left Coast, and we're still waiting for an update from club about the new job data. At least he's busy.

Out of curiousity, what is Kerry's plan to increase job growth? Does it start with replacing Alan Greenspan?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Out of curiousity, what is Kerry's plan to increase job growth? Does it start with replacing Alan Greenspan?

Rubinomics?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Out of curiousity, what is Kerry's plan to increase job growth? Does it start with replacing Alan Greenspan?

I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the fact that Rubin was sitting next to THK during his speech last week was a Sign.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Rubinomics?

Can these be described?

If possible, on a napkin, like Reagonomics.