Cynical Nation

All Scooter had to do was pull a Hillary: "I can't recall...I don't remember..." and it all would have gone away. But noooo...he was the smartest guy in the room and he just knew he could pull the wool over Fitzgerald's eyes.

I have no sympathy for Mr. Libby at all. He got caught lying to a grand jury and the prosecutor successfully made the case in a court of law.

So happy Fitzmass everyone -- you better be happy because this is all you're gonna get out of this one...No Dick in the dock and no Dubya out the door. Get over it.

Personally, I think Libby was lying.

But what you are not recognizing is that he was tossed into a vortex created by Wilson's claims abot being sent to Niger at Cheney's request - a claim we all know now was a lie as well. I have no doubt that the VP's minions were flummoxed by this and that they handled it poorly (albeit, let's recall that the original leak was from Armitage at State, hardly a Bush/Cheney ally).

Mort Kondracke tonight had the best suggestion as to how best to respond to Wilson's BS article: call a press conference and disavow his claims.

They didn't and must now reap the media frenzy.

No biggy. It wll be forgotten in several months because...it was no biggy.

I'm still really unclear on a lot of this. So Wilson's claims were lies, but was Valerie Plame an undercover agent? Because that's something they touched on on Morning Edition and, bearing in mind that this was NPR, the people they interviewed were former CIA people and they're still pissed. And what's always concerned me about this is that if Plame was an undercover agent (and the CIA seems to have considered her as such, regardless of whatever pundits seem to think), what about all her contacts? Are they now in danger? And I know Richard Armitage is the one who first mentioned it to a journalist, but how did he know? Did whoever told him think it wasn't a big deal because she was no longer an undercover agent (because I still don't understand how you can be one and then not be one and not compromise the people with whom you dealt if it comes out in the open)?

Regardless, it sucks that in order to discredit Wilson, the Administration decided to hone in on the spouse. That's just sucky behavior.

Oh, and re: the actual lying. What a moron. If he didn't remember Watergate (and isn't he actually of an age where he would have been aware of it at the time it happened as opposed to learning about it in history?) or Monica, hello. Martha Stewart just got out of jail. What's wrong with him?

> Regardless, it sucks that in order to discredit Wilson, the Administration decided to hone in on the spouse. That's just sucky behavior.

Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way at all, but that's just me. And if Plame were truly concerned about her status, perhaps she shouldn't have gotten the Niger assignment for her husband, a move that was always *sure* to prompt questions.

Regarding the CIA being pissed, recall that Robert Novak got permission from the CIA's communications office to go public with the fact that Plame worked for the CIA(!!) The only stipulation was that the CIA asked Novak not to use her name. Novak decided this was bull****, since her name was a matter of public record, and used it anyway. At the time Novak broke the story, the CIA did not seem at all concerned about hiding the fact that Plame worked for them. That's a very important fact that shouldn't be ignored.

this is all a political hit, and I hope neither Bush nor Cheney react to it. We libs may have been "victimized" by the Reps over Clinton's behavior, but 1) we should be above such revenge and 2)the Dems should have gone and supported censure back then.

This and the Walter Reed "scandal" just stink of political assassination. Military hospitals were crap before W was in office. But notice how the "surge" is working in the media. Could it be they realize a Democrat *will* have to deal with Iraq and they won't have W to kick around anymore?

>At the time Novak broke the story, the CIA did not seem at all concerned about hiding the fact that Plame worked for them. That's a very important fact that shouldn't be ignored.

I have never understood that part. Either she was covert, or she wasn't. And I really, really think that if someone has ever been covert, than that person should remain unnamed for the sake of all the contacts. So I don't get why anyone thought it was okay. And if it was a lack of communication between relevant departments? The CIA has a lot more to worry about than Valerie Plame and her outing.

>
This and the Walter Reed "scandal" just stink of political assassination. Military hospitals were crap before W was in office. But notice how the "surge" is working in the media. Could it be they realize a Democrat *will* have to deal with Iraq and they won't have W to kick around anymore?

Rachel, I don't think the press is worried about not having anyone to kick around once W is out of office. Did you notice a lack of column inches or videotape on WJC, or for that matter Gore and Kerry?

The media may lean left, but the driving force is always what sells.

" We libs "

Rachel,
Please stop pretending that you are a liberal. Your positions are certainly incosistent with being a liberal.

I dont think you really believe that you are a liberal, but if you really do, just take the test. You will probably find out that that you are as conservative as Barry. Cheers.

shove it, BW. you are just a troll with time on your hands. You cannot and will not judge me on who I am or what I believe in. PS I notice how you don't challenge Barry. So knock it off. (Sorry for the pissing match, Barry, it won't happen again.) PS - I took the test - I got a 6.

You're right about Gore and the press, K. In fact, I was quite surprised the fact over Gore came the day after his recieving the Oscars, one almost think it was planned.

And I agree with Barry 100% on this article. If you do the crime, do the time, regardless of political affiliation.

As some of you may recall (because I posted about it here) I did an extensive investigation into the Plame affair a few years ago, including a conversation with a CIA Public Information Officer (before they shut stopped talking about the issue). Here's what I found:

1. Valerie Plame Wilson (VPW) was almost certainly not a covert agent at the time of her exposure, and almost certainly was a covert agent (actually, in CIA terms, a Clandestine Officer) between 1983 and 1997.

2. It doesn't matter whether she was or wasn't covert; her identity was classified, so if someone revealed her identity, knowing that it was classified and knowing that the CIA was taking affirmative steps to keep it classified, it is possible that a crime was committed. An investigation was warrented.

3. It is not a crime to reveal the identity of a covert agent if the source of your information was not classified and you didn't know the CIA was taking affirmative steps to conceal the identity of the agents.

4. VPW was sufficiently well known in Washington D.C., The international counter proliferation community, and as a background source for at least one broadcast media company, that it is entirely possible for someone (like Richard Armitage) to know that VPW worked for the CIA without knowing it from a classified source.

5. Notwithstanding the claims of some partisan bloggers and former CIA officers, Brewster-Jennings & Associates was almost certainly not a CIA "front company" used for the purpose of concealing the identity of covert agents, and no one's life was put in jeopardy by the revelation that VPW worked for the CIA. If I must, I will, once again, go into excruciating detail about why this is so.

6. Revealing VPW's name is much less likely to have compromised any clandestine operation she might have been involved in than revealing her face which would have been recorded anytime she entered a foreign country. Presumably, her secret identity did not include her actual name. No one associated with the administration released any pictures or video tape of VPW.

Of course, we now know that Robert Novak's source was Richard Armitage, who is on record as having opposed the administration plan to invade Iraq, and we know that Patrick Fitzgerald (apparently) found no evidence that the revelation of VPW's name was a criminal act.

We also know, BTW, that Saddam did, in fact, send representatives to Niger in search of uranium, that Joe Wilson did, in fact, find evidence of that, and that Wilson's discovery was corroborated by British intelligence who still insist that they got it right, and acknowledge that they did, in fact, advise the Bush administration that "Saddam [had] recently sought uranium ore in Africa."

Libby was a moron for lying and deserves to do a few years for breaking the law -- Case closed!

As some of you may recall (because I posted about it here) I did an extensive investigation into the Plame affair a few years ago, including a conversation with a CIA Public Information Officer (before they shut stopped talking about the issue). Here's what I found:

1. Valerie Plame Wilson (VPW) was almost certainly not a covert agent at the time of her exposure, and almost certainly was a covert agent (actually, in CIA terms, a Clandestine Officer) between 1983 and 1997.

2. It doesn't matter whether she was or wasn't covert; her identity was classified, so if someone revealed her identity, knowing that it was classified and knowing that the CIA was taking affirmative steps to keep it classified, it is possible that a crime was committed. An investigation was warrented.

3. It is not a crime to reveal the identity of a covert agent if the source of your information was not classified and you didn't know the CIA was taking affirmative steps to conceal the identity of the agents.

4. VPW was sufficiently well known in Washington D.C., The international counter proliferation community, and as a background source for at least one broadcast media company, that it is entirely possible for someone (like Richard Armitage) to know that VPW worked for the CIA without knowing it from a classified source.

5. Notwithstanding the claims of some partisan bloggers and former CIA officers, Brewster-Jennings & Associates was almost certainly not a CIA "front company" used for the purpose of concealing the identity of covert agents, and no one's life was put in jeopardy by the revelation that VPW worked for the CIA. If I must, I will, once again, go into excruciating detail about why this is so.

6. Revealing VPW's name is much less likely to have compromised any clandestine operation she might have been involved in than revealing her face which would have been recorded anytime she entered a foreign country. Presumably, her secret identity did not include her actual name. No one associated with the administration released any pictures or video tape of VPW.

Of course, we now know that Robert Novak's source was Richard Armitage, who is on record as having opposed the administration plan to invade Iraq, and we know that Patrick Fitzgerald (apparently) found no evidence that the revelation of VPW's name was a criminal act.

We also know, BTW, that Saddam did, in fact, send representatives to Niger in search of uranium, that Joe Wilson did, in fact, find evidence of that, and that Wilson's discovery was corroborated by British intelligence who still insist that they got it right, and acknowledge that they did, in fact, advise the Bush administration that "Saddam [had] recently sought uranium ore in Africa."

Libby was a moron for lying and deserves to do a few years for breaking the law -- Case closed!

Sorry about the double posting.

"shove it, BW. you are just a troll "

Rachel,
The only reason I made the comment, is because it is kind of unusual for a liberal (or a moderate) to be defending the Bush administration these days. Anyway, I did not mean to offend you, and I am sorry if I did. I am glad you scored a 6.

Anyway, now I have to go back to my regular troll activities :)

That's all right, feel free to piss away.

Wow, I got a 31. And I thought I was being pretty "liberal" on a lot of the answers.

I have to say, there were certain questions I'd never given any thought to whatsoever. Whom do I trust more? The CIA or the Peace Corps? What the hell?

I don't think Bubba and Scooter are exactly equal. Bubba was dragged in front of a grand jury to answer questions about his personal life in a very low and dirty Repug attempt to humiliate him. Bubba stupidly lied, when he should have told them to fuck off.

Scooter was not the victim of a Dem plot to humiliate him. Scooter, on orders from Cheney, set out to deliberately ruin the career of Joe Wilson's wife, in order to intimidate him into shutting up because he was telling the truth about Bush and Cheney's bald-faced lies that they were using to drag this country into a War for Profit.

Libby should be hanged. He is a traitor. He helped murder 3,500 or so young men and women in our armed services so that Bush's friends could rake in obscene profits and secure long-term oil contracts with the puppet government of Iraq.

So yeah, Bubba and Scooter both lied. Bubba lied about his personal life, and Scotter lied about being involved in treason and murder.

"Rachel,
Please stop pretending that you are a liberal. Your positions are certainly incosistent with being a liberal." (BW)


No, actually they're "inconsistent with being" an instinctive, partisan hack.

One of the problems Dems have long had is this, there do tend to be a lot more "independent thinkers among the broader spectrum of Liberals, people who wouldn't support a Carter, even those they revile a Nixon, so they'd accept a Moderate Ford.

Conservatives across the board seem more ideologically committed.

Even those who revile Bush for his border failure and his inability to rein in excessive federal spending, will look for (1) the most viable, Conservative candidate in a Primary (that's why Buchanan lost, they didn't see him as a cross the board viable and Rudy is winning, cause they do feel Rudy IS viable) and can be counted on to support the most Conservative voice in any open race.

I think some of this is actually because many "Liberals" engage in "magical thinking."

They see a good economy and say, "Wow, the President's doing a great job!"

Conservatives insist on certain principles - smaller government and lower taxes (pragmatic thinking) and don't look at a single boom or recession as the fault of "the President."

They see that the boom of the late 1990s was based on an artificial "Tech Bubble" caused by some illicit changes at the SEC.

They see that Bush inherited the "Tech Bubble Bust recession," inherited the terrorist menace that had been ignored for nearly a decade and realize that the current economy (2.2% inflation, 4.5% unemployment, low interest rates, 7.6 million new jobs over the past four years, rising worker productivity 1.6% per year and rising personal income 6.6% per year) and realize that (1) those Bush tax cuts really worked, (2) that the current strong economy has been earned and (3) that Paul Krugman who breathlesly called a sudden Dow drop last week, a signal of the "implosion of the worldwide economy," is an idiot...and a partisan hack.

Ironically enough, that sudden and precipitous drop in the Dow last week was based on the Chinese market responding to a threat of a Chinese Cap Gains tax (the Chinese gov't made clear that's not in the works) and all has been well since.

Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI...and he was guilty of all those things.

He was not, however, convicted of "outing Valerie Plame."

In fact, Richard Armitage did that and he was deemed to have committed no crime, as Plame was not a "covert operative" at the time of her 'outing."

Libby's conviction may have to do with some sort of cosmic karma - he was Marc Rich's lawyer, wheedling a pardon for Rich from Bill Clinton (reportedly for an "undisclosed price).

I have never understood that part. Either she was covert, or she wasn't.

My guess, since no one was prosecuted for the leak itself, is that Plame was a noc in the past but not at the time of the leak.

Great post, withoutfeathers.

Just a couple of points of clarification:

1. Clinton was caught perjuring himself in a deposition in a civil case that was unrelated to the Ken Starr investigation. He then compounded his crime by lying about the perjury to a grand jury that was considering the original perjury allegation (among other things).

2. Valerie Plame's status with the CIA was not the sole criteria of criminality in her case. Armitage would have also had to have known that the CIA was trying to maintain her "covert" status or he would have had to obtain that information from a classified source. Under the law, it is possible to reveal the identity of a "covert" agent without committing a crime.

From the JMK Joke Book:

"They see that Bush inherited the 'Tech Bubble Bust recession'"

A lie. First of all, no President controls the stock market, and a stock market correction does not control the U.S. economy.

It was the excuse Bush used to launch his neocon War on the Middle Class, transferring the workers directly to the idle rich.

"inherited the terrorist menace that had been ignored for nearly a decade"

A laughable lie. Bush saw the same reports as Clinton, and took the same, or even less, action.

9-11 was a godsend, providing an excuse for the neocons to start up the war machine, quickly switching the front from Afghanistan to Iraq because that was where they wanted to go, and they lied and lied to get us there.

Nobody can point to Chimp or his father eight years before treating terrorism any differently from Clinton -- until it was time for Chimp to enrich his friends with the blood of our soldiers.

"and realize that the current economy (2.2% inflation, 4.5% unemployment, low interest rates, 7.6 million new jobs over the past four years,"

You mean record bankrupcy filings that were then banned by the Repug congress, which then translated into record, skyrocketing foreclosures.

7.6 million MacJobs is first of all TERRIBLE for four years, not to mention that Bush presided over tens of millions of good paying jobs leaving the country with his "Free Trade!" blessing.

Bush has been a disaster.

"rising worker productivity 1.6% per year "

Yes, workers are producing more for less, and putting in more free overtime to keep their jobs. You got one right!

"and rising personal income 6.6% per year) and realize that (1) those Bush tax cuts really worked, (2) that the current strong economy has been earned and"

**Personal incomes rose in January at the fastest clip in a year, bolstered by bonus payments to high-income executives**

Wow, it's GREAT that high income executives are paying themselves hundred million dollar bonuses!

Those Bush tax cuts have REALLY worked for the very wealthy, so while Bush has spent like a drunk sailor, his buddies are busy shipping jobs out of the U.S. and buying foreign cars and luxury yachts!

I think Bush misjudged a little. By 2008, even the dumber members of the middle class, like firemen, will start to figure out that they have been duped.

"My guess, since no one was prosecuted for the leak itself, is that Plame was a noc in the past but not at the time of the leak." (CRB)


I believe you are correct in that guess.

Holy COW!!!

I've been duped?!

Honestly, I can't complain, really, I can't. After years of falling behind other paid FD's across the nation, the FDNY has delivered 27% in raises over the past two years! A 17% increase settled in 2005 and a proposed 10% raise that's just been offered (along with 12% "specialty pay" for Rescues, Squads and HazMat Units). In my case, I may see my pay increase 39% over that period.

Every contractor I know (and most of the firemen I know are contractors of some kind on the side) are doing very well.

The economy has been producing high paying jobs due, in part to free trade - like Toyota's building a $1.6 billion plant in Alabama to produce SUVs in the U.S.

In the real estate market, the landing has been surprisingly soft, with far fewer mortgage defaults than had been anticipated in late 2005.

Moreover, there is another new trend that bodes well for the housing market cycle. Unlike past housing market downturns, this cycle is not accompanied by rising unemployment. In fact, employment growth continued as home sales fell. Over the last 12 months, more than two million household jobs were added to the U.S. economy. The unemployment rate fell in nearly every region across the country. Recently, employment growth has sputtered over the last few months (see page 2), but it is not expected to fall.

More good news is that banks are keenly aware of this problem and so will be quick to help owners restructure their loans to make payments. Banks and other lenders have learned from past downturns and realize that it is better to help homeowners pay their loans than for the bank to absorb the financial brunt of any mortgage defaults.

So far, there hasn't been anywhere near the number of mortgage defaults some had predicted, so banks haven't had to face that surge in refi's though some regions - Denver & Miami have been hit hard, while NY's market remains more stable, Manhattan's has actually continued to rise in price!.

The entire late 1990s "Tech Bubble" was indeed artificially created by RULES CHANGES at the SEC.

When those rules were set back to their default positions in January of 2001 the gossamer "Tech Bubble" burst by March!

That default to the original SEC positions created (that's "caused" to you) the NASDAQ implosion which began in March of 2000 and resulted in the 2001 recession that followed that long, ugly implosion.

The Bush tax cuts dug us all out of that.

Personal income has been rising steadily (except this past month - 6.6%) at a rate of 0.3% to 0.8% per month, or between 5% and 6% per year since 2002.

You're beginning to sound a lot like that economic idiot Krugman here, get ahold of yourself.

JMK, stop listening to Rush Hannity O'Reilly all day long, it is rotting your brain.

The "unemployment rate" doesn't count people who simply run out of unemployment and are then excluded from the numbers. This number is huge. The number of underemployed is even larger, as computer programmers take jobs at Home Depot.

The Bush "tax cuts" merely transferred wealth from the middle class to the already obscenely wealthy. They weren't cuts at all. Bush depleted the surplus and ran up the national credit card to its limit to fund his War for Profit, further enriching the rich, while murdering our soldiers with his lies.

The middle class is losing home ownership, and foreclosures are exploding (since the Repug congress outlawed bankruptcy except for the rich and corporations).

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&q=foreclosure+epidemic&sa=N&tab=nw

Personal income is ONLY up because of exectutives giving themselves $100 million bonuses. Middle Class workers have lost personal income. Your neocon dream of an impoverished middle class working at WalMart sustaining a real economy is just another example of the type of "excellent history" Ann Coulter researches.

Bailey, I won't ask you to read a book, but you should learn how to read a BLS Employment Situation Summary.

The unemployment number is taken from the "Household Survey" in which people are asked if the are employed or unemployed. People who would prefer to be employed, but have not looked for a job recently (about 1.6 million in the most recent survey) are classified as "Marginally attached to the labor force."

Can you show some objective data that demonstrates that "underemployment" is as severe as you claim?

Since the welfare rolls haven't increased its far more likely that those "not counted" in the unemployment stats, started their own busiensses or work from home as individual contractors for companies (a growing trend).

The tax cuts were across the board in every tax bracket.

Lower tax rates help lower income individuals, then do higher tax rates coupled with more social programs, as few, if ANY of those "social programs" go to benefit middle class workers.

Again, the "ousing bubble" has had a very small (almost negligible impact) on the economy at this point, because many markets still remain stong, including much of California's and New York's.

Miami's is hurting because of speculative buying and much the same happened in and around Denver, two of the hardest hit.

WF is right about the Household Survey being a more accurate indicator of such trends, and the reason the Libs don't use it, is thankfully, up to now, it hasn't provided data to their liking (that backs up their positions).

There's no reason to argue the pros and cons of Supply-Side vs Keynesian economics. Suffice to say that the Supply-Siders have been right, that lower tax rates = higher revenues and cutting federal social spending does not harm working or middle class people, and even Welfare Reform (cutting welfare) helped millions get off the dole and back to work, which is to the good.

“I think some of this is actually because many "Liberals" engage in "magical thinking."
They see a good economy and say, "Wow, the President's doing a great job!"” – JMK

Yeah, I’ve never heard tell of anyone but a liberal doing that. LOL – priceless.

“Conservatives insist on certain principles - smaller government and lower taxes (pragmatic thinking) and don't look at a single boom or recession as the fault of "the President."” – JMK

Must be more of that “magical thinking” since GWB and the republican controlled congress actually increased the size of government dramatically.

“They see that Bush ….inherited the terrorist menace that had been ignored for nearly a decade” – JMK

I know it’s already been pointed out, but it still bears repeating that initially Bush did nothing about this “inheritance” he in fact did less than Clinton. Then 9-11 happened and things changed. We can differ in opinion on whether he did the right thing – that’s another story, but two things we’ll never know are whether a different president would have changed course and reacted (I suspect the answer in almost all cases is they would have), or whether Bush would have ever done anything about terrorism if we had not been attacked (I suspect the answer to that is he would not have – there’s no evidence to suggest he would have, prior to 9-11 he seemed disinterested in hearing anything about it). More “magical thinking”.

“Honestly, I can't complain, really, I can't. After years of falling behind other paid FD's across the nation, the FDNY has delivered 27% in raises over the past two years! A 17% increase settled in 2005 and a proposed 10% raise that's just been offered (along with 12% "specialty pay" for Rescues, Squads and HazMat Units). In my case, I may see my pay increase 39% over that period.” – JMK

Yes it must be nice to be on the receiving end of all that government largesse. I suppose you’ll be declaring a moratorium on complaints about government overspending for the foreseeable future. In the private sector (you know the one that operates under the capitalist system you are such an expert on) we don’t see those types of increases unless we are actually adding to the bottom line. It’s ironic that you are so happy to be in the same class as those ridiculously overpaid MTA workers. Why don’t you stand up and call for privatization of both the FDNY and the MTA? I know you’re pat answer will be that you’ll do well with all the training you’ve received (free training to be specific that you’ve received at the taxpayer’s expense). The reality is that if the FDNY were privatized you would be paid what the market would bear – and in the end it would be far less than what you currently receive. You’re pensions would vanish, your time off would dry up and all of your specialized training would be paid for by you either out of pocket or through an educational loan – perhaps partially offset by your company.

“The unemployment rate fell in nearly every region across the country. Recently, employment growth has sputtered over the last few months (see page 2), but it is not expected to fall.” – JMK

On a side note - one piece of advice when plagiarizing is to remove any (quoted) references to page numbers, especially if your posting in a forum such as a comment section where there are no page numbers.

“The entire late 1990s "Tech Bubble" was indeed artificially created by RULES CHANGES at the SEC.
When those rules were set back to their default positions in January of 2001 the gossamer "Tech Bubble" burst by March!
That default to the original SEC positions created (that's "caused" to you) the NASDAQ implosion which began in March of 2000 and resulted in the 2001 recession that followed that long, ugly implosion.” – JMK

Actually that’s incorrect. The tech bubble was caused primarily by one thing. A flawed business model. “Get big fast” it’s been called. The idea was that brand recognition and market share were more important than profitability. The idea was that you could build a company while running at a loss as long as you got your name out there. In theory it can work and did work for a few companies like yahoo, the problem is that at some point you have to become profitable in order to be sustainable. Otherwise you can only continue to operate with continued cash injections – fueled either by venture capitalist, stock offerings, note offerings, etc.

Venture capitalists were enticed by the sexiness of a newfound industry (same as they were with the railroads 100 or so years ago) and low interest rates. In most cases the bulk of their money was protected, and when they pulled it a company was left standing without it’s legs. The market and the mentality attracted a lot of snakes who knew it wasn’t sustainable but knew they could use it to make a quick profit. The smart ones got in and out quick, the dumb ones and the ones with bad timing got caught as the whole thing imploded.

This is essentially the same reason Enron failed. They were never profitable, and the further they went down the rabbit hole, the worse it became. One good thing that came out of this was Sarbanes-Oxley, although it’s better in concept than application. It’s a step in the right direction.

“The Bush tax cuts dug us all out of that.” – JMK

Or could it just as easily be attributed to cycles and timing?

“Conservatives insist on certain principles - smaller government and lower taxes (pragmatic thinking) and don't look at a single boom or recession as the fault of "the President." (JMK)


“Must be more of that “magical thinking” since GWB and the republican controlled congress actually increased the size of government dramatically.”
(GZ)


I’ve NEVER heard any Conservative laud G W Bush on reining in spending.

In fact, it’s one of the two major issues I’ve rated him negatively on – the borders (shut’em down) and reining in federal spending.




“They see that Bush...inherited the terrorist menace that had been ignored for nearly a decade” (JMK)


I know it’s already been pointed out, but it still bears repeating that initially Bush did nothing about this “inheritance” he in fact did less than Clinton. Then 9-11 happened and things changed...More “magical thinking”. (GZ)


Actually another error by GZ.

G W Bush did exactly what Bill Clinton had done about the rising cesspool tide of Islamo-fascism pre-9/11, which is NOTHING. That is, nothing more, nothing less.

Saddam’s Iraq had violated the “No Fly Zones” over 125 times in 1998. That violation reset American-Iraqi relations back to their pre-1991 peace accord default, which was war.

That’s the result when one country violates a peace accord...the situation between those countries return to their default position prior to that accord.

But Bill Clinton didn’t move to war, instead, on October 31, 1998 he announced a new policy on Iraq called "regime change."

The president signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act," which, among other things, appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy.

In December of 1998, the Clinton administration began a 4-day (December 16-December 19) bombing campaign over Iraq (it was called Operation Desert Fox) conducted by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

Senator John Kerry, among other Democrats, called for a full scale invasion of Iraq at that time.

We can say that the “criminal justice method” of dealing with international terrorism failed as back in 1993 James Fox, then Director of the FBI’s NY Office said, “State sponsored international terrorism is beyond the scope and purview of U.S. law enforcement,” in the wake of the 1993 WTC bombing.

You’ll never find an example of the “magical thinking,” actually it would merely be erroneous thinking, on this topic, on my part, because you won’t find any example of my stating ANYWHERE that G W Bush did anything about international terrorism pre-9/11.




“Honestly, I can't complain, really, I can't. After years of falling behind other paid FD's across the nation, the FDNY has delivered 27% in raises over the past two years! A 17% increase settled in 2005 and a proposed 10% raise that's just been offered (along with 12% "specialty pay" for Rescues, Squads and HazMat Units). In my case, I may see my pay increase 39% over that period.” (JMK)


“Yes it must be nice to be on the receiving end of all that government largesse. I suppose you’ll be declaring a moratorium on complaints about government overspending for the foreseeable future.

In the private sector (you know the one that operates under the capitalist system you are such an expert on) we don’t see those types of increases unless we are actually adding to the bottom line. It’s ironic that you are so happy to be in the same class as those ridiculously overpaid MTA workers. Why don’t you stand up and call for privatization of both the FDNY and the MTA? I know you’re pat answer will be that you’ll do well with all the training you’ve received (free training to be specific that you’ve received at the taxpayer’s expense). The reality is that if the FDNY were privatized you would be paid what the market would bear – and in the end it would be far less than what you currently receive. You’re pensions would vanish, your time off would dry up and all of your specialized training would be paid for by you either out of pocket or through an educational loan – perhaps partially offset by your company.” (GZ)


Actually, those raises (1) merely bring the FDNY and NYPD closer to the pay levels of surrounding departments – Yonkers’ and Newark’s (among others) Police and Fire Department’s still earn somewhat more than their NYC counterparts...and I have and still do express concern over the costs of NYC’s Municipal workforce and its impact on the city’s future financial viability. For my part, I’ve had very little time off during the past two years, with over 800 hours of overtime and about a half dozen out-of-state courses that have taken me away from my family for weeks at a time.

So, I guess I won’t declare a moratorium on government over-spending, it’s bad. It’s bad for business and it produces an inflationary pressure.

The city has looked into privatizing the MTA and the Sanitation, and probably should, as you say, look into the viability of privatizing the Police and Fire Departments, as well.

But many private haulers actually pay better than the city Sanitation. Transportation is another matter. I’ve heard many people argue that public transit should be free to users and paid for by hiking parking fines, speeding tickets and the like. I don’t know if that’s (1) viable and (2) right, as in why should drivers pay for public transit they don’t use? Now, I can’t say the free ride plan is completely inviolable, because the off-sets produced by moving more people to public transit, might actually be worth the costs, though that would take some in depth financial analysis that I don’t believe is available yet.

As for unemployment – U.S. unemployment has been LOW and continues to be LOW across this great nation...with few exceptions (small pockets, here and there).




“The entire late 1990s "Tech Bubble" was indeed artificially created by RULES CHANGES at the SEC.
When those rules were set back to their default positions in January of 2001 the gossamer "Tech Bubble" burst by March!

“That default to the original SEC positions created (that's "caused" to you) the NASDAQ implosion which began in March of 2000 and resulted in the 2001 recession that followed that long, ugly implosion.” (JMK)


“Actually that’s incorrect. The tech bubble was caused primarily by one thing. A flawed business model. “Get big fast” it’s been called...

Venture capitalists were enticed by the sexiness of a newfound industry (same as they were with the railroads 100 or so years ago) and low interest rates. In most cases the bulk of their money was protected, and when they pulled it a company was left standing without it’s legs. The market and the mentality attracted a lot of snakes who knew it wasn’t sustainable but knew they could use it to make a quick profit. The smart ones got in and out quick, the dumb ones and the ones with bad timing got caught as the whole thing imploded.

This is essentially the same reason Enron failed. They were never profitable, and the further they went down the rabbit hole, the worse it became. One good thing that came out of this was Sarbanes-Oxley, although it’s better in concept than application. It’s a step in the right direction. (GZ)


There was much more to the Tech bubble than that. It really was the result of SEC changes in the margin rates and in IPO rules, among other such things in the late 1990s.

It fueled more margin investing, especially by people who didn’t fully understand the risks and it fueled the IPO-mania of the late 1990s.

Those rules changes were set back to their default positions in early 2000 and the NASDAQ promptly imploded.

Enron failed for a very different reason than why the Tech Bubble burst. Enron was basically a scam, OK you might call those rules changes “a scam” too, but a different kind of one.

Enron was a trading company (a company in which all, or substantially all, of its activities are engaged in some form of trading) and trading companies usually need to borrow money almost every day to cover their short-term transactions. Trading companies constantly borrow to pay off their short-term loans.

This isn’t really an unusual or illegal business practice, but its daily credit rating is vital to its success. Its accountants (Arthur Anderson, in Enron’s case) were the key to Enron’s “success” as they served the now illegal dual role of both consultants and auditors.

When it became public knowledge that Enron, with the apparent complicity of Arthur Anderson, had overstated its income and disguised its debts, creditors lost confidence and refused to make those vital loans to Enron.

Beyond that, Enron had leveraged a lot of its debt into a number of high risk off-shore accounts, many of them (perhaps most) were made up or “dummy” corporations.

Although that was legal, it was done on such a large that Enron’s debt costs spiraled out of control at the slightest risk and the lost confidence of all those creditors and later, investors provided that trigger. It is said that Andrew Fastow created more than 4000 dummy corporations to hide Enron’s deception.




“The Bush tax cuts dug us all out of that.” (JMK)


Or could it just as easily be attributed to cycles and timing?” (GZ)


Sure, it COULD all just be "luck."

Keynesianism (government spending, especially government social spending is a net positive to the economy) failed after ruling the day in America for over a decade and a half – from 1964 when LBJ took power to 1981 when Carter left office, after Keynesianism imploded amidst the inevitable STAGFLATION it produced – “the worst economy since the Great Depression.”

Since that time, we’ve had over a quarter century of uninterrupted Supply-Side rule and, apparently, according to you, “LUCKILY,” or coincidently one of the most prosperous quarter century periods ever.

Tax rate cuts have never failed to increase revenues.

I can’t imagine why anyone would find that at all “counter-intuitive.” It stands to reason that practical people act practically and “respond to incentives.”

For instance, when income tax rates increase, people with higher incomes tend to defer more of their incomes and tax revenues fall.

When income tax rates are cut (at least down to around the 22% level), those same high income earners take more of their income up front and tax revenues rise.

It would be nice, if there were some evidence, any evidence that government social spending is “good for the economy,” but there isn’t any that I’m aware of.

“I’ve NEVER heard any Conservative laud G W Bush on reining in spending.
In fact, it’s one of the two major issues I’ve rated him negatively on – the borders (shut’em down) and reining in federal spending.” – JMK

You may rate him negatively on this, but you aren’t all conservatives – I don’t speak in absolutes.
The fact is you said ““Conservatives insist on certain principles - smaller government and lower taxes” – this was in relation to how they hold a president accountable. GWB was reelected (even after he reneged on one of those principles) was he not? My point is that when you say that conservatives insist on certain principles, you’re clearly wrong – the evidence says otherwise. Of course not all conservatives are equal by my reckoning.

“Actually another error by GZ.
G W Bush did exactly what Bill Clinton had done about the rising cesspool tide of Islamo-fascism pre-9/11, which is NOTHING. That is, nothing more, nothing less.” – JMK

Oh Yeah? Where was the first one again? It’s not an error, he did do less. You may not agree with what Clinton did, but he did act. It’s been demonstrated that when Bush came into office all the talk was over Iraq even before 9-11. Noone wanted to discuss Bin Laden, it’s been asserted by Richard Clarke that nobody listened to him when he suggested that Bin Laden was a threat. The picture conveyed is one of arrogance, that of a new administration coming in and not wanting anything to do with the old. Which is understandlable in terms of certain policies, but not in terms of intelligence. I’m not claiming Clinton did all he could, just that in the months before 9-11 Bush did even less.

“Actually, those raises (1) merely bring the FDNY and NYPD closer to the pay levels of surrounding departments – Yonkers’ and Newark’s (among others) Police and Fire Department’s still earn somewhat more than their NYC counterparts...and I have and still do express concern over the costs of NYC’s Municipal workforce and its impact on the city’s future financial viability. For my part, I’ve had very little time off during the past two years, with over 800 hours of overtime and about a half dozen out-of-state courses that have taken me away from my family for weeks at a time.” – JMK

As I said if firehouses as a whole were privatized (not just the FDNY) then the costs would be cut and wages and benefits would be first to go. In the free market you wouldn’t have such ridiculous pay incrases. As to the out of state courses, people travel for business and training all the time in the private sector. The training is a perk if the company picks it up – it’s a benefit to you at no cost. Many times education is only partially reimbursed. The travel is just a fact of life. Do you think I got compensated when Itravelled to California for a month to take part in an acquisition? No, my compensation was the ability to spend my off time (little that their was) seeing the sights. My family wasn’t with me either. In the real world we aren’t paid for that.
Nor are we paid overtime if we work 80 hour weeks during an acquisition, or a quarter close, or a year end, etc. It’s considered part of the job, as it should be for you.
“So, I guess I won’t declare a moratorium on government over-spending, it’s bad. It’s bad for business and it produces an inflationary pressure.” – JMK

But you are – you believe your raises, OT, educational and travel expenses are justified. In my view it’s government overspending. Same as with the MTA. They have machines that can dispense tickets, no need for overpaid booth attendants that aren’t even there at night anyway when you might need them.

“The city has looked into privatizing the MTA and the Sanitation, and probably should, as you say, look into the viability of privatizing the Police and Fire Departments, as well.” – JMK

I’m glad you agree. I hope you realize the changes that will be in store if they ever do.

“Transportation is another matter. I’ve heard many people argue that public transit should be free to users and paid for by hiking parking fines, speeding tickets and the like. I don’t know if that’s (1) viable and (2) right, as in why should drivers pay for public transit they don’t use? Now, I can’t say the free ride plan is completely inviolable, because the off-sets produced by moving more people to public transit, might actually be worth the costs, though that would take some in depth financial analysis that I don’t believe is available yet.” – JMK

You won’t hear me saying that, even in Europe the trains aren’t free. I think that if they did away with a lot of the bloated overhead costs caused by the union and redundant positions protected by the union, and pension plans etc. then that money could be reinjected into the system perhaps reducing fares. But let’s face it as fuel prices rise, fares have to as well, or else the offset will have to come through taxes in some form – which is a bad idea.

“There was much more to the Tech bubble than that. It really was the result of SEC changes in the margin rates and in IPO rules, among other such things in the late 1990s.
It fueled more margin investing, especially by people who didn’t fully understand the risks and it fueled the IPO-mania of the late 1990s.” – JMK

Yes but the underlying cause that it even happened was the fact that this was a new technology and venture capitalists allowed flawed business models to rises as a way of determining which companies were viable. This created the Tech bubble which enabled unscrupulous people to exploit the situation and make money at the expense of others. It also attracted naïve investors to the market to engage in the margin-investing you mention. I don’t deny that what you mention was a factor, but it’s a result not a driver.

“Enron failed for a very different reason than why the Tech Bubble burst. Enron was basically a scam, OK you might call those rules changes “a scam” too, but a different kind of one.” – JMK

I disagree – it seems as if you know why Enron failed, I know I do. I think we’re just looking at it from two different directions. Enron was a scam, it was the “get big, fast” concept again where running in the red doesn’t matter so long as you still have cash coming in through other sources. That’s essentially the same as the dot com fiascos. The big difference with Enron was their use of Mark to Market Accounting which the SEC approved and Arthur Andersen looked the other way on. Mark to Market allowed them to record all of the future revenue on a contract immediately the day it was signed, and as selling gasline futures was a new business they came up with their own models (many wildly inaccurate) to project future earnings. They also paid out commissions on the full life of the contract to their managers immediately following the signing, instead of paying them out over time as most companies would. In many cases the manager receiving the commission was the same one who created the projection for future earnings, a clear conflict of interests.
In the end Enron had billions of paper profits from futures contracts on it’s books as profit, but no cash at all. They were kept afloat through a series of bank loans and stock sales. The things you cited are definitely true – and traditional trading companies use mark to market as well – however they have reliable earnings models created over decades of reliable observation. However what made Enron fail, and essentially was the root of all of it’s problems was that it was a new business – same as the dotcoms, and the same philosophy of get big quick – that it was ok to shortcut today and run at a loss (in the case of internet companies to grab name recognition, in the case of Enron, to secure the market) as long as you were growing was their downfall.

“The Bush tax cuts dug us all out of that.” (JMK)

Or could it just as easily be attributed to cycles and timing?” (GZ)

Sure, it COULD all just be "luck." – JMK

“Since that time, we’ve had over a quarter century of uninterrupted Supply-Side rule and, apparently, according to you, “LUCKILY,” or coincidently one of the most prosperous quarter century periods ever.” – JMK

Actually if you’ll look up you’ll see that “Luck” is according to you. I just said that it could be cycles and timing. Big difference, the economy does undergo regular cycles, up and downs. You tried to liken that to luck, which is incorrect. No matter what anyone does there will always be cycles. We attempt to lengthen the ups and shorten the downs, it’s debatable what impact we have. I’m not one to blame or praise presidents for the fact that they happen to land in the Oval Office at a particular point in the cycle. I realize many do, and it’s not really their fault as the media does it as well.

“Tax rate cuts have never failed to increase revenues.” – JMK

Never is a dangerous word. I’m not one to say that they decrease revenues, but I’ll never say never. Besides there are two sides to this as you well know, revenues and expenditures. There’s been nothing but spend spend spend on the expenditures side.

“It would be nice, if there were some evidence, any evidence that government social spending is “good for the economy,” but there isn’t any that I’m aware of.”- JMK

Very rarely is any type of spending good for the economy, so it becomes a question of what’s important.

"Never is a dangerous word." (GZ)


You're right about that...I shouldn't have said "never," but income tax rate cuts down to about the 22% mark do tend to incentivize those with higher incomes to take more of that income up front and that generally results in higher revenues.

Tax rate increases are generally incentives for those same people to defer more of their compensation.

It seems to be incredibly difficult for politicians to cut expenditures. Maybe because the government workforces from Municipal Unions to federal employees are a constituency that is so visible to them and one that can have a direct impact on their political agendas and careers.

Career Civil Servants know that politicians, especially "reformers" come and go," and if they drag thier feet and even sabotage those reforms (various Municipal Unions have simply made certain reforms unworkable) they know that eventually, many, if not most of those "reforms" will simply go away.

Under Bloomberg, its been a constant battle to keep the Giuliani era welfare reforms. Those career Civil Servants in the social services know that if they just keep pushing, eventually they'll outlast those "outsiders" who've called for those reforms.

Same thing with just about every such Union- the UFA fought AGAINST the introduction of the "fireproof cigarette."

The UFA, like the PBA and all such Unions know that when a given administration fights to rein in things like OT - that's what all that "specialty pay" is about for the Fire Dept - reducing the overtime in the Special Operations Command (a/k/a "the secret overtime club" to those in non-SOC Units), but Unions know that sooner or later, they can count on another administration dropping the ball and they can eventually count on BOTH that "specialty pay" AND the added overtime...and people wonder why public spending tends to almost "naturally" spiral out of control.

There are few administrators like John T O'Hagan (the FDNY Chief of Dept) in the 1970s who often said, at the height of NYC's "firestorm" ('68 - '78) "I could get this job done with 5,000 men!" That number was less than half the FDNY's workforce at the time.

As a result, John T O'Hagan was one of the most hated Chiefs in FDNY history, because of such stances...I'd bet it's pretty much the same all over.

The government workforce from the military, and various Intel agencies to Congressional Staff members, to state local law enforcement and First Responders, to teachers and social service workers form a huge and very influential constituency that constantly seeks MORE...more pay, more positions, more perks.

Politicians and citizens who seek to rein that in are very much swimming upstream.

It's probably a heretical thing to say, but every segment of the public sector needs more guys like old John T O'Hagan, people dedicated to giving the public the most cost-effective bang for its buck.

I also agree that spending cuts come down to priorities, and tax cuts alone do only half the job. In fact, without spending cuts, they can mask a growing problem (a swelling and ponderously expensive public workforce).

While there a number of mostly Conservative Democrats who support this view, that "smaller government" ideology is sadly and lately very mistakenly seen as a Republican ideology.

It's NOT, at least it shouldn't be...and it certainly doesn't have to be ceded to one Party over another.

"You may rate him negatively on this, but you aren’t all conservatives – I don’t speak in absolutes.
The fact is you said ““Conservatives insist on certain principles - smaller government and lower taxes” – this was in relation to how they hold a president accountable. GWB was reelected (even after he reneged on one of those principles) was he not? My point is that when you say that conservatives insist on certain principles, you’re clearly wrong – the evidence says otherwise. Of course not all conservatives are equal by my reckoning." (GZ)


Fair point, but Bush was only narrowly re-elected over an extremely flawed candidate (Kerry) who had often staked out positions on both sides of each issue and did a very poor job of explaining exactly what he'd do better and how.

I believe my wife is right when she says, "If Bill Clinton could've run again, he'd have won either or both of those elections over G W Bush."

Clinton was a better politician, a much more moderate Democrat and a better communicator, a better communicator, in my view, than any modern President save for Reagan.

Gore came off as a real stiff. He had to shoot himself in the foot a dozen times to make that race close...it never should've been close and if he hadn't distanced himself from "BC's more centrist stances" it probably wouldn't have been close.

Kerry was just a poor choice, along the lines of a Dukakis, or a Mondale.

I believe, that G W Bush won those two races only because so many people saw him as the "lesser of two bad choices."

For instance, Bush has been terrible on the border issue, but Gore & Kerry offered no chance of sealing that border. If anything, I fear that both of them would've been even worse on that issue...same with the over-spending issue. It seems as though each time, we had to choose between two spendthrifts.

Maybe there are people who think G W bush was a great candidate, but all I can actually say, is that I haven't met many.

Then again, almost every candidate has some flaws, most have lots, like most people, I guess.

I think/fear we might very well have to choose between two very flawed candidates again in 2008 - Giuliani vs Hillary, or Giuliani vs Obama.

It almost always seems to come down to a choice between "the lesser of two evils" for me.

"As I said if firehouses as a whole were privatized (not just the FDNY) then the costs would be cut and wages and benefits would be first to go." (DBK)


I was very interested and followed the privatized FD's in various city's around the country.

Sadly, most of them have failed.

And like private carters, they didn't pay at all poorly...in fact that (poor pay) has hurt NYC. It demands a certain amount of College credits (i forget the number off hand, I'd graduated before I got on, so I didn't think twice about that) and EMT training BEFORE you can enter the academy and they attract far fewer people with their current $25K/year starting pay then they did even a decade ago.

The biggest cost to the taxpayers is the "disability pensions," which amount to 3/4s of your salary tax-free for the rest of your life. The State pension borad pays about half and the feds, I believe, make up the difference.

When a FF is killed in the Line of Duty (LOD) his family gets that guy's salary for life + a "Death gamble," based on time on the job - mine would be over $900K right now to my wife.

YES, that is very generous, as is the training they give SOC members.

I'd like to see a private FD work, but I'd like to see Municipal Departments and ALL Municipal workforces reined in somewhat...THAT'S where much of the over-spending is - OT, bureaucratic overlap of services, over-buying of some equipment, often leading to shortages later in the year of some smaller, but every day items.

I think the primary problem with EVERY government agency is that they aren't run like a business - they're run on the principle that "money is no object," and that "the government (the taxpayers) will pay for it."

That's why the taxpayer almost always gets ripped off.