Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times.
  
  "He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it."
  
  Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.
  
  The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune.

2. I'd vote for him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I like that all these Dems are so worried about Ashcroft now.

Let the eagle soar.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Krugman, from the NYT, on free trade:

• Nothing divides Democrats like international trade policy. That became clear last week, when the announcement of a deal on trade between Democratic leaders and the Bush administration caused many party activists to accuse the leadership of selling out. The furor subsided a bit as details about the deal emerged: the Democrats got significant concessions from the Bushies, while effectively giving a go-ahead to only two minor free trade agreements (Peru and Panama). But the Democrats remain sharply divided between those who believe that globalization is driving down the wages of many U.S. workers, and those who believe that making and honoring international trade agreements is an essential part of governing responsibly.
  
  What makes this divide so agonizing is that both sides are right.
  
  Fears that low-wage competition is driving down U.S. wages have a real basis in both theory and fact. When we import labor-intensive manufactured goods from the third world instead of making them here, the result is reduced demand for less-educated American workers, which leads in turn to lower wages for these workers. And no, cheap consumer goods at Wal-Mart aren’t adequate compensation.
  
  So imports from the third world, although they make the United States as a whole richer, make tens of millions of Americans poorer. How much poorer? In the mid-1990s a number of economists, myself included, crunched the numbers and concluded that the depressing effects of imports on the wages of less-educated Americans were modest, not more than a few percent. But that may have changed. We’re buying a lot more from third-world countries today than we did a dozen years ago, and the largest increases have come in imports from Mexico, where wages are only about 11 percent of the U.S. level, and China, where wages are only 3 percent of the U.S. level. Trade still isn’t the main source of rising economic inequality, but it’s a bigger factor than it was. So there is a dark side to globalization. The question, however, is what to do about it.
  
  Should we go back to old-fashioned protectionism? That would have ugly consequences.... [E]ven trade skeptics tend to shy away from a return to outright protectionism, and to look for softer measures, which mainly come down to trying to push up foreign wages. The key element of the new trade deal is its inclusion of “labor standards”: countries that sign free trade agreements with the United States will have to allow union organizing, while abolishing child and slave labor....
  
  Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.
  
  So what’s the answer?... [A]ll-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little.... Democrats [who] really want to help American workers... have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i do. just not the gossip columns or other mean spirited nonsense.

Mean spirited nonsense:

• "The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question," Hagel, R-Neb., said in a statement. "Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Mean spirited nonsense:

• "The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question," Hagel, R-Neb., said in a statement. "Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead."

Give it up, Shifter. Gonzales is in that rareified air of Louisiana politicians now. Absent being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he's not going anywhere.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats [who] really want to help American workers... have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.[/list]

Kind of a leap to that last sentence . . .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Give it up, Shifter. Gonzales is in that rareified air of Louisiana politicians now. Absent being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he's not going anywhere.

Yesterday, it was Ashcroft. Today, it's Specter.

Suddenly, I have Republican heros.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Kind of a leap to that last sentence . . .

why tax the wealthy. The canadian system provides universal health care, and it's all free.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Krugman, from the NYT, on free trade:

• Nothing divides Democrats like international trade policy. That became clear last week, when the announcement of a deal on trade between Democratic leaders and the Bush administration caused many party activists to accuse the leadership of selling out. The furor subsided a bit as details about the deal emerged: the Democrats got significant concessions from the Bushies, while effectively giving a go-ahead to only two minor free trade agreements (Peru and Panama). But the Democrats remain sharply divided between those who believe that globalization is driving down the wages of many U.S. workers, and those who believe that making and honoring international trade agreements is an essential part of governing responsibly.
  
  What makes this divide so agonizing is that both sides are right.
  
  Fears that low-wage competition is driving down U.S. wages have a real basis in both theory and fact. When we import labor-intensive manufactured goods from the third world instead of making them here, the result is reduced demand for less-educated American workers, which leads in turn to lower wages for these workers. And no, cheap consumer goods at Wal-Mart aren’t adequate compensation.
  
  So imports from the third world, although they make the United States as a whole richer, make tens of millions of Americans poorer. How much poorer? In the mid-1990s a number of economists, myself included, crunched the numbers and concluded that the depressing effects of imports on the wages of less-educated Americans were modest, not more than a few percent. But that may have changed. We’re buying a lot more from third-world countries today than we did a dozen years ago, and the largest increases have come in imports from Mexico, where wages are only about 11 percent of the U.S. level, and China, where wages are only 3 percent of the U.S. level. Trade still isn’t the main source of rising economic inequality, but it’s a bigger factor than it was. So there is a dark side to globalization. The question, however, is what to do about it.
  
  Should we go back to old-fashioned protectionism? That would have ugly consequences.... [E]ven trade skeptics tend to shy away from a return to outright protectionism, and to look for softer measures, which mainly come down to trying to push up foreign wages. The key element of the new trade deal is its inclusion of “labor standards”: countries that sign free trade agreements with the United States will have to allow union organizing, while abolishing child and slave labor....
  
  Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.
  
  So what’s the answer?... [A]ll-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little.... Democrats [who] really want to help American workers... have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.

Once again, I agree with Krugman.

[Gattigap]

Tony Snow, on the other hand, can suck it.

linky

• Asked about Comey's testimony, White House press secretary Tony Snow said he didn't know anything about the conversation at Ashcroft's bedside. But he defended the program.
  
  "Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?" Snow said of Ashcroft. "Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had. But the fact is that there were strong protections in there, this program has saved lives and it's vital for national security and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way."

You'd think Tony would be a bit more appreciative of the impact of hospitalization, what with his colon cancer and all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Tony Snow, on the other hand, can suck it.

linky

• Asked about Comey's testimony, White House press secretary Tony Snow said he didn't know anything about the conversation at Ashcroft's bedside. But he defended the program.
  
  "Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?" Snow said of Ashcroft. "Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had. But the fact is that there were strong protections in there, this program has saved lives and it's vital for national security and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way."

You'd think Tony would be a bit more appreciative of the impact of hospitalization, what with his colon cancer and all.

Seriously, you're talking about stopping a program that had been ongoing for a period of years, not starting it. the admin thought it was important and providing a real benefit. then, when the AG goes down, all of a sudden his stand-in tells the admin, (for the apparent first time?) that he will not sign it. remember, someone must have signed for it initially.

I realize how tacky it sounds on paper, but are you telling me it is that unreasonable to go ask the real AG if he agrees?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Seriously, you're talking about stopping a program that had been ongoing for a period of years, not starting it. the admin thought it was important and providing a real benefit. then, when the AG goes down, all of a sudden his stand-in tells the admin, (for the apparent first time?) that he will not sign it. remember, someone must have signed for it initially.

I realize how tacky it sounds on paper, but are you telling me it is that unreasonable to go ask the real AG if he agrees?

That would be a good take if it were accurate.

Fact of it is that DOJ reviewed the program well before he got sick, and revealed its concerns to Ashcroft, who shared them. Then he got sick.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
why tax the wealthy. The canadian system provides universal health care, and it's all free.

Often, I have major difficulty figuring out what the hell you're talking about, but usually I glean something.

Here, I'm totally lost.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That would be a good take if it were accurate.

Fact of it is that DOJ reviewed the program well before he got sick, and revealed its concerns to Ashcroft, who shared them. Then he got sick.

They skipped over that part on Fox.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Often, I have major difficulty figuring out what the hell you're talking about, but usually I glean something.

Here, I'm totally lost.

I see several possible interpretations. Let's vote on what makes the most sense:

a. Hank believes in taxing the poor. The rich should keep their money.

b. Canadian healthcare is to Hank as the Teachers Union is to Spanky.

c. When Hank fell off the table at that Windsor strip club, he was surprised at how little the operation cost.

d. Hank may have once been funny.

e. All of the above.

I vote "c".