Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Supply side economics is bunch of bullshit. The economic doldrums we are in has proven that, if the slump of the early 90's didn't.

The boat was most likely built by Riva, in Italy. and the parcel of real estate could be put to better use than a third home for Donald Trump.

Yeh, but "progressive" taxation has basically become a game of attempted wealth redistribution that the redistributors have lost miserably.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bullshit. If you taxed the top group 99% and everyone else whatever you needed to make up the deficit, you're telling me that it would not matter one whit if you dropped the top rate to 98%, because it's a move away from progressivity. Bullshit, I say again.

If your beef is that the current tax system is not sufficiently progressive, then fine, but call it that. Don't dress it up as "tax cuts only for the rich." The problem is that the rich are the only ones who pay enough taxes as it is to have cuts of any significance.

I don't know how much you make, but a 5% drop in my tax rate would have an impact on my standard of living. And what's more, I would most likely spend a larger protion of it on durable goods and consumer goods that provide jobs to a broader base than those who produce luxury goods. I might even have enough to save more, so I would be able to swallow a shift from the current social security system to a needs-based system. That would provide real economic relief in terms of paying down the deficit.

And I thought I stated fairly clearly that my beef was not that the system isn't progressive enough. My beef is that the tax cuts all benefited the top income earners at the expense of the great majority of taxpayers.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Property taxes should also be flat.

What property taxes aren't flat?

Other than places with "homestead deductions", they're as close to flat as any tax.

And if the gripe is about different rates for uses, well, tell that to Joe Homeowner, who'll start having to pay to cover the shortfall in commercial r.e. taxes so his son can get a half-decent education.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Supply side economics is bunch of bullshit. The economic doldrums we are in has proven that, if the slump of the early 90's didn't.

The boat was most likely built by Riva, in Italy. and the parcel of real estate could be put to better use than a third home for Donald Trump.

If you call 4.0% growth the "doldrums," I'm not sure there is anything else to discuss. Even the 3% last quarter is hardly the "doldrums."

[Gattigap]

Ann lets her hair down in an interview across the pond, letting us know (among other things) that the French are "faggots," the Pakistanis "never very high in anyone's caste system, are they. Poor little Pakis."

God, is that hot. It's a shame she doesn't say this stuff stateside. Club, maybe we can get this included as a caption underneath the August pinup poster.

On terrorists: "The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is, 'Are all terrorists Muslims?' And the answer is yes - every one I have to worry about."

Whew! Thank God she remembered she was in London, or we might not have gotten that last part in. Would hate to see the Brits realize that all this time they've been looking for the wrong people in Belfast.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What property taxes aren't flat?

Other than places with "homestead deductions", they're as close to flat as any tax.

And if the gripe is about different rates for uses, well, tell that to Joe Homeowner, who'll start having to pay to cover the shortfall in commercial r.e. taxes so his son can get a half-decent education.

Egg on my face. Carry on.

[sgtclub]

To the contrary, American Soldier rebuts some criticisms directed against the president. Bush has been accused, for instance, of taking his eye off Afghanistan by ordering the plan for a possible war with Iraq in the fall of 2001. Franks writes that, given the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, this was a sensible request, and that "our mission in Afghanistan never suffered" as a result.

Scores of pundits have accused the administration of lying, or at least distorting the evidence, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Franks reveals that the leaders of Egypt and Jordan told him that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. Though no weapon of mass destruction was ever found, he writes, "I do not regret my role in disarming Iraq and removing its Baathist regime."

Another charge made against the administration is that political appointees failed to give the generals enough troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, Franks writes, it was his own choice to employ limited forces in order to avoid getting bogged down. Instead of relying on sheer size, he thought surprise and speed were the keys to victory -- a judgment largely vindicated by events.

http://www.instapundit.com

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Gattigap
On terrorists: "The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is, 'Are all terrorists Muslims?' And the answer is yes - every one I have to worry about."

Heh. Not anymore. I'm sure the Provisional IRA is right now planning the attack to go along with the note they'll send in reminding people that they, too, merit being worried about.

It'd be a nice publicity grabber for them.

I mean, a guy can dream, can't he?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.instapundit.com

But there's that little issue of the top-uniform* who said something different publicly, and then was "re-assigned".

Sure the military bosses at the top agreed with Rummy. Why else would Lt. Rummy put them in "charge"?


Hello

*Who was that guy again, was it Shalishkavili?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But there's that little issue of the top-uniform* who said something different publicly, and then was "re-assigned".

Sure the military bosses at the top agreed with Rummy. Why else would Lt. Rummy put them in "charge"?


Hello

*Who was that guy again, was it Shalishkavili?

He is on record as saying we needed more troops. Franks, the guy actually running the campaign, disagreed and it was his decision. We can all arm chair QB, but this is pursuasive to me.

[sgtclub]

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.

The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1235-4438r.htm

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.instapundit.com

Well, I for one am shocked that the guy gave himself a good grade. But Phil Carter, former operational planner in the 4th Infantry Division, isn't as impressed with Franks as Franks is.

It may well be the case that CENTCOM operational plan 1003-V succeeded during Phase III of the war — that is, the major combat phase. Indeed, it can be argued that this plan succeeded spectacularly, leading to what has been called "catastrophic success". But what is abundantly clear, both to national security experts on the left and right side of the aisle, is that this same plan spectacularly failed when it came to Phase IV of the operation. CENTCOM's plan, and the plans of CENTCOM's subordinate units, failed to anticipate catastrophic success as a possibility; it failed to effectively plan for worst-case scenarios of chaos and lawlessness; it failed to put adequate security and stability and nation-building resources on the ground quickly enough; and it failed to interface with the other departments of government, namely the State Department. The result is the mess we're in today. How in the world do these events vindicate Gen. Franks' judgment?

Answer: they don't. And Gen. Franks even says they don't in his book. Gen. Franks speaks to the issue of post-war planning and security a couple of times in his book, at one point laying the blame on senior Washington officials to give him sufficient policy guidance. Mr. Boot may not have read the same meaning in these words as I did, but then again, he hasn't served as an operational planner or even in uniform, so he may have missed the subtext. Let's turn to pages 351-2, and the description of an OPLAN brief from Dec. 2001 to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld and Sec. Powell, among others:

"It was understood that the final phase, Phase IV--post hostility operations-- would last the longest: years, not months. ... The endstate of Phase IV included the establishment of a representative form of government in a country capable of defending its territorial borders and maintaining internal security, without any weapons of mass destruction.

I was aware that Phase IV might well prove more challenging than major combat operations..." [emphasis added]
Analysis: You have to have sat through a few OPLAN briefings to understand why this is significant. Here, Gen. Franks briefed the President and the NSC principals that Phase IV entailed significant strategic and operational risk, and that there was no good solution yet for Phase IV. Yet, the discussion afterwards focused entirely on WMD, Scuds, issues with allies, and other issues focused on Phase III. No one asked Gen. Franks about Phase IV; it seemed like an afterthought. That makes sense because the White House and Pentagon leaders saw Operation Iraqi Freedom as Desert Storm II in many ways — where we dodged the post-war issue by limiting our objectives and pulling out rapidly. This passage implies that Gen. Franks was aware of the problem, but his bosses weren't — and he didn't pop a starcluster to let them know of the problem.

read more here: http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/a...tml#1092580373

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He is on record as saying we needed more troops. Franks, the guy actually running the campaign, disagreed and it was his decision. We can all arm chair QB, but this is pursuasive to me.

Oops, maybe I was thinking Shinseki.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm

Is it persuasive to you that the only high-ranking voice willing to counter Rummy and Wolfy was replaced as soon as he countered Rummy and Wolfy?

Is it persuasive to you that our military leadership changed a great deal to the point where lo-and-behold, only people who agreed with Gen. Rummy and Gen. Wolfy were put in charge of things?

Hyperbole maybe, but what did happen to Shinseki?

Armchair QB my ass. Rummy whacked the first dissenter, looked around the leadership ranks, and said "who else disagrees with me"? Franks was the first one to step up and say "Not Me".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.instapundit.com

(1) I was talking about troops for the post-war, not for the fighting.

(2) I read last week that senior generals wanted something like 250,000 troops,* and that the smaller number came from civilians at the top of DoD. If I get bored, perhaps I'll try to find the story.

* eta/stp: Not Shinseki -- he testified that even more would be needed, as I recall.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Silly speculation about WMD and Syria.]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were WDM in Iraq, and that they they were smuggled out of the country to Syria (inter alia?) before/during/after the invasion. Does this not suggest that invading Iraq was a really stupid way of dealing with the problem of Iraqi WMD? Or perhaps that we should have been prosecuting the war in order to prevent this outcome -- i.e., to get control of WMD? I'm just wondering why an outfit as conservative as the Washington Times thinks that they are defending the Administration by floating this claptrap.