If you add Congress's 14% approval rating to Bush's 32%, you get... (okay, hang on a minute here...) Okay, I got it. A 46% approval rating for our nation's government. Nothing to write home about, perhaps, but I've seen worse.
Yes, 23% is probaby in line with the approval rating most people would give government overall.
However, that is probably due more to perception than any current reality.
The economy is doing well and yet there's a sense of foreboding among many people.
We haven't been attacked on US soil in almost six years (thanks to an aggressive military WoT abroad and strong domestic policies at home, like the Patriot Act) and the Dems have upped the Min Wage...and...and...well, they haven't done anything catastrophically stupid like defunding the troops or raising taxes.
It seems much of the low approval of government overall is due to (1) an uneasy sense of bad times ahead and (2) the sense of rampant bipartisan corruption.
...along with--in no particular order-- 3) many years of excessive federal spending on garbage (in recent times, a one-party fiscal orgy); 4) creating new, sure-to-burgeon bureaucracies like Medicare Rx and Dept of Homeland Security; 5) mangling, bungling and fumbling the wars; and 6) the inept reaction to Katrina.
Well that pretty much accounts for the anti-Bush sentiment (32%) Fred, I suppose the William Jefferson (D-La) scandal, the enduring corruption (ie. Pelosi initially giving her big donor StarKist Tuna a pass on the Min Wage by excluding Guam from the scope of that Bill), the proposed tax hikes, the proposed EVEN MORE wasteful & excessive spending by Democrats accounts for the anti-Dem Congress sentiment (14%).
And personally, I LIKE the Dept of Homeland Security. It addresses a common problem with those various and sundry security agencies - lack of communication and cooperation.
While the Feds still barely tolerate local law enforcement (and vice versa), at least the CIA, NSA, FBI and ICE (formerly the INS) all interface regularly as members of the same agency.
On the excessive spending side, I too lament the reckless over-spending (on the NCLB Act & the prescription drug boondoggle - Medicare Rx) BUT that's all the more reason to eschew the Democrats who in every case, wanted even MORE spending and ever more bureaucracy.
I'll acknowledge that I WANT security spending at this juncture. What I really don't want is any old school 60's-styled "social spending." It's counterproductive, as it creates more dependence among recipients and so it's "reckless" by its very nature.
JMK, you are such a joke. Bush and his rubber stamp congress took a surplus and spent it into an astounding deficit, siphoning endless billions to their cronies under the guise of "fighting terrorism".
To hear that idiot Chimp suddenly start squawking about "reining in wild democrat spending" makes me want to puke. The bastard can't find his veto pen to stop any spending, but leaps into action to stop stem cell research and keep using our troops as cannon fodder for oil companies in Iraq.
If congress would impeach Chimp, their approval rating would soar. We have a dry-drunk smirking frat boy running the country, and the results are to be expected: disaster.
The economy is only great for Wall Street. Companies are making record profits gouging Americans, and sending off their jobs to hire cheap labor in the third world, where they can pollute and abuse people at will.
Unemployment is only down because they kick people off the role of the unemployed when their benefits run out, not because they found jobs. Of course, many did trade their high paying jobs to work at Wal-Mart.
You wouldn't know. Being a fireman your job and wages are protected by a union, right?
If "reckless spending" were the reason that Americans rated Congress even LOWER than the President, then your argument that "If congress would impeach Chimp, their approval rating would soar," might have some merit, but that's NOT the reason.
There were many Liberal candidates that ran...and lost on the impeachment issue and THAT'S why Schumer and Emmanuel turned to Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats in the last election.
Across the board American INCOMES are UP....not down and welfare rolls, which would've exploded had millions merely been "kicked off the unemployment rolls, despite remining jobless," are DOWN...not up.
As to reining in reckless and irrational spending, take heart, the current President has threatened to veto the Democratic Congress' initial budget on...."wasteful spending."
Bush wouldn't let a dime be spend on pro-American programs to help build this country -- but that isn't really about spending.
Bush has spent everything in the bank and mortgaged your grandchildren's future as well, all to pour money into his cronies' pockets under the guise of "war".
No president has ever spent as recklessly as Chimp. You must have him confused with the fiscally conservative Clinton, who built up the surplus that the frat boy wasted.
The fact that you consider the one of greatest threats America has ever faced, a very real threat to global domination, by the jihadist forces of Sharia-based Islam, shows how unbalanced you are.
We fought in the Balkans and Halliburton got EVERY contract in that engagement too. No other corporation does the full range of things that Halliburton does. That's why they've gotten all these deals for decades now.
And, no matter who gets in (Hillary or Rudy...or someone else)....we'll have no choice going forward. We're now faced with war...WAR and MORE WAR, at least until strict Sharia-based Islam ceases to be a force for evil in the world.
And THAT will depend very much on how Iraq goes.
If we lose Iraq and the jihadists gain a foothold there, we're probably looking at 100 years of war or more, if miraculously it improves and the American-friendly Iraqi government is stabilized and can push al Qaida out, it may end sooner.
There is no way for ANYONE to argue rationally against this WoT.
We've avoided another domestic attack here because (1) we've engaged this enemy militarily in their own homelands and (2) because we've removed "acts of terrorism" FROM being ajudicated as "crimes," and used extra-legal means to catch suspected terrorists.
Acts of terrorism are NOT "crimes" and terrorists are NOT "criminals," they are soldiers taking part in "unconventional warfare."
That's why the SC has recently approved Military Tribunals rather than US courts trying those charged with terror-related offenses.
This WoT has just gotten started, we haven't even reached a point of high dudgeon yet. Believe me, America will be VERY "war weary" fifty years from now...and there may still, even then, be a long way to go.
And that surplus was built AFTER the Gingrich Congress took office. Congres controls the purse strings.
The "fiscally Conservative Clinton" (he certainly was that) warred with the Liberal Democrat Congress during his first two years in office.
He wisely worked well with the Gingrich Congress, signing onto SEVEN of the TEN plancks of Gingrich's "Contract With America." THAT (Gingrich's Contract) is what made Bill Clinton's Presidency look good.
Of course, this war SHOULD'VE been started back in 1998. It was seriously considered at that time, and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were among two of the many prominent Dems who pushed for it at that time, but it sadly got derailed...UNTIL we were ruthlessly attacked on 9/11/01.
Oh, I forget you ingenious Rush Limbaugh device: if it was bad, blame Clinton, if it was good, credit the congress!!!
But hey, pretty much the same congress, with Chimp instead of Clinton, blew the surplus and another half trillion or so ... hmmm, so maybe it WAS Clinton, eh?
However, we agree on one point. There is an enemy. However, instead of wasting the lives of our soldiers and mortgaging our economic future, why don't we just use a few of those thousands of nukes we have already paid for and put an end to this serious threat RIGHT NOW.
Don't you agree that the threat warrants a real war? In a real war you don't hold back. With nukes, it can all be over in a few days.
Newt was Speaker till end 1998--Tom DeLay was in putative control for the last 2 years of Clinton.
Pls don't be so much of an ignoramus to glom all the credit to the 1990s GOP Congress without giving equal credit to the Dem in the White House.
Just as one shouldn't slam Clinton for allegedly letting bin Laden run free during the 1990s without similarly slapping down the GOP Congress for burying its own head in the sand (any hearings? any congressional resolutions? any public calls for arms? any significant noise from Capitol Hill excpet 'wag the dog' accusations?)
The "Gingrich Revolution" gets the bulk of the credit for the rest of the 1990s (that last year) because the tone set by Gingrich carried the GOP Congress forward at least another year....til the end of '99.
Tom Delay didn't stray from the Gingrich mantra his first two years, it was a gradual process.
Moreover, MY statement "The Congress Bush worked with, had Tom Delay instead of Newt Gingrich," is 100% accurate. No part of that is wrong. So, what are you attempting to take issue with again?
Clinton worked for four years with the GREAT Newt Gingrich, while Bush with a somewhat flawed Tom Delay. In my view, Delay was simply an old style politician like a Tip O'Neill or a Tom Foley. That's NOT all bad, it's just NOT Newt!
Remember Gingrich reformed an "out-of-control" Democratic "Congress in crisis," back in 1995!
The BEST things Bill Clinton did were ALL part of Gingrich's "Contract With America," while the bad things (like the "Hillarycare" debacle and "gays in the Military") were all Democratic in origin.
It's imperative for each of us, no matter what side of the political spectrum we fall to acknowledge true greatness - Gingrich had and has it.
When Clinton cooperated with the Gingrich plan, he had some too.
I gave Clinton some credit in all my above posts, now it's incumbent upon folks like yourself to give Gingrich his well-deserved props as well.
So BH, you really get a chub overusing the monikers 'Chimp' and 'Frat Boy'. Heh
Ever actually read your own comments? You and BW worry the hell out of me because I know it's people like you who voted last November;Disillusioned, illogical, misled sheep of the Media Shepard. It makes me shake my head because it's sad.
And no I won't participate in posting fact after fact that you'll ignore anyway.
You have no grasp of facts and you obviously aren't going to change your mind anymore than you can change mine with your nonsense rambling.
Just getting my 2-bits(inflation, ya know) in. JMK doesn't need my help to debunk your misinformation.
Oh, I forget you ingenious Rush Limbaugh device: if it was bad, blame Clinton, if it was good, credit the congress!!!
Proof of that, Bailey? In truth, Rush never said that nor played that game. Feel free to prove me wrong with data from unbiased sources and not your mind, OK?
Oh, and if what you may quote happens to be true (i.e. a GOP congress leading WJC to the trough on matters such as welfare reform), that doesn't count because it's a correct analogy!
"Gingrich was the best thing to happen to the U.S. Congress in the entire 20th Century." (JMK)
"Ha ha ha ha. That was a sick joke." (BW)
Actually Gingrich was a truly awesome figure BW!
He took an out-of control Congress in Crisis and turned it around with a series of sweeping reforms.
He convinced a Supply-Side, Centrist Democrat (Bill Clinton) to go along with 70% of the "Contract With America," which included spending reductions and welfare reform and he got the GOP Congress to sign onto term limits.
If he hadn't stepped down he'd probably have been able to have forced those term limits through.
Once old school Tom Delay took over Term Limits were out and the old school politics that Gingrich reviled and reformed were back.
Like I said earlier, Delay was an old style politician, just like a Tip O'Neill or a Tom Foley. Newt Gingrich was an idealist, an educator and a reformer.
Those who despise Gingrich, hate common sense, people-oriented reforms. Those Dems who despised Delay, merely wish he were "on their team."
Don't get sucked into the nonsense that "Gingrich is a flawed man."
So what!?
ALL great men are greatly flawed!
Martin Luther King was a plagiarist and a womanizer.
JFK was a heavy drinker, a man addicted to pain killers (from his back injury) and also a womanizer.
Thomas Jefferson himself was a womanizer and a rogue.
Again, great men usually have great flaws. Gingrich is a towering figure, far more erudite and even more passionate about real reform than either King or Kennedy, in my view.
For anyone who sought out real, meaningful government reform, Newt Gingrich should be an icon. He was and remains the last best hope for that kind of people-oriented reform.
LOL! Look at them circle their little pink wagons, knees knocking, holding hands for support ... even coming to defend the honor of fathead felon drug addict Rush Limbaugh!
You know you are winning when they have to form a support group.
I like how JMK is their "facts" champion! I post endless links to unbiased sites, and he gives out hazy, unsubstantiated Rush quotes with no references: yep, that's a fact!
JMK has "discredited" me by what? By saying that it was all the congress, but when that turned out to be false, he says "Well, Foley didn't follow Gingrich!" and then when that didn't work he pulls out of his ass "Well, Foley did follow Gingrich for two years, but then he stopped!"
LOL! Good god, is this the bastion of facts and logic I am up against? Is this the Conservative Champion they are all going to follow!
Good for you, JMK. I'm proud of you. Never did a man with so little go so far in the minds of other small minded people!
Gingrich was first accused of unethical behavior when he accepted an advance as part of a book deal as well as numerous other counts. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes and using the GOPAC political action committee as a slush fund; see Joseph Gaylord. Gingrich retained former U.S. Representative Edwin Bethune of Arkansas, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and lobbyist, to represent him.
Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich admitted that he had violated House rules and accepted the house committee's recommendation for punishment.[20] [21] Gingrich was sanctioned for $300,000[22] after the House Ethics Committee concluded that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules.[23] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.[24]
"JMK has "discredited" me by what? By saying that it was all the congress, but when that turned out to be false, he says "Well, Foley didn't follow Gingrich!" and then when that didn't work he pulls out of his ass "Well, Foley did follow Gingrich for two years, but then he stopped!" (Barely Hanging)
You must be a bit flumoxed Barely, because actually I'm the ONLY ONE of the two of us who's ever documented my arguments with articles, many from the NY Times (a Liberal standard - they documented Saddam's "Detterence by Doubt" strategy), while YOU'VE posted articles that have consistently document MY arguments - you posted an article that showed H-1B Visa limits rising TWICE under the Clinton administration and DECLINING back to their original levels under G W Bush.
Ironically enough, the current Democratic Congress is now considering...yep, raising those H-1B Visa limits AGAIN!
And you recently posted an article that confirmed my contention (and debunked yours) that RICO statutes only allow for the confiscation of ill-gotten assetts AFTER conviction...and I said "thanks."
As to the above misconceptions of yours, I never said Speaker Foley preceeded Speaker Gingrich, nor did I say he followed Gingrich....I rightly claimed that Tom Delay (he was the Republian who followed Newt as the GOP's titular leader in Congress) scuttled Newt's reforms after Gingrich resigned.
In point of fact, Tom Foley was the Democratic Speaker of the House who followed the scandal-scarred Democrat Jim Wright and preceeded the great Newt Gingrich.
No JMK, I said that a million foreigners held H1B visas under Bush, and I was 100% correct, and I linked to prove it.
So, basically I was 100% correct in exactly what I said ... THEN, you distorted it by PRETENDING I said something I didn't -- see how that works? Everybody else sees it, Chimp Jr.
In fact, the article I link COMPLETELY DESTROYED your argument that the government didn't confiscate property and assets from people convicted of no crime, and you started HIDING BEHIND the idea that confiscation=transfer of ownership.
Confiscated does NOT equal transfer of ownership. To confiscate is only to take possession of, by authority. Once again, since you are completely defeated by facts, you try to confuse the issue with incorrect definitions to try and worm yourself out of looking as stupid as you always look.
Foley, Delay -- heh, well I did make a mistake. Wow, you got me that time, I did say Foley when I meant Delay.
Wow, you win! That means you are 100% right on all facts, because I obviously said Foley when I meant Delay.
Barely, your own article showed that H-1B Visas went from around 50,000 in 1992 to slightly over 1 MILLION by 2000, after TWO consecutive limit (first from 65,000/year to 95,000/year, then to 165,000/year) increases signed into law by Bill Clinton (and rightly so) in the midst of the Tech Bubble.
It also showed that the H-1B Visa limit was reduced back to it's initial 65,000/year default position by the current administration as soon as they came up for renewal.
THAT was bad, as H-1B Visa workers (1) DO NOT reduce incomes for American workers, as they address serious "structural unemployment" issues and (2) many U.S. industries (ie financial services, etc) face such structural unemployment issues.
And YES, the current Dem Congress is seriously considering RAISING the limit once again...and I support that!
CONFISCATION is NOT, as you've alleged, "the SAME as "freezing assetts deemed by a court to be ill-gotten." IN point of FACT, such assetts can be frozen only AFTER a Grand Jury indictment (NOT "suspicion," as you've alleged) and they can be CONFISCATED (TAKEN to you) only AFTER conviction (again NOT "based on suspicion" as you've alleged).
Barely, you're as WRONG on RICO as you were on the H-1B Visa program, and that's utterly and completely wrong!
And above, I mentioned Delay only as he became the titular head of the GOP Congress after Gingrich...and he undid most of Newt Gingrich's reforms....again, you seemed to miss the actual point of what I was saying.
Thanks stupid, you just agreed that what I said was true: under Bush we had 1 million foreign H1B workers.
I rest my case, thanks.
The H1B program killed an entire American industry, causing American student to abandon Computer Science and damaging this country now and far into the future while endlessly enriching India at our expense, all for the short term gain of the traitor corporations you worship.
The H1B program is anti free market. Allowing only employeers (but not employees) to circumvent market forces and artifically lower salaries and transfer expertise to foreigners, instead of producing high salaries and drawing our own children into a lucrative field, which would have producted hundreds of thousands of American computer scientists, ensuring our technological edge perpetually.
Your trouble, JMK, is that you hate America. You love corporations, but you hate America.
Yes indeed, Bush inherited that 1 MILLION H-1B Visa workers.
The limits were RIGHTLY raised TWICE between 1993 and 2000 (from 65,000/yr to 195,000/yr), increasing the number of H-1B Visa workers FROM about 50,000 in 1993 to about 1 MILLION in 2000.
The Bush administration WRONGLY reduced those limits BACK to their original/default numbers (65,000/year).
America still faces a lot of structural unemployment. We have more accounting jobs, for instance, than trained accountants to do them.
Accountants make very good money. Senior Managers, in major firms, routinely earn $150,000/year or more. Raising that figure to $200,000/year, or more, ISN'T going to magically create MORE accountants and businesses can't wait years for schools to start churning out more, that works needs to get done NOW.
Ergo, the H-1B Visa which helps to alleviate the problem of Structural Unemployment, while DOING NOTHING to reduce US worker wage rates.
Computer science and IT are today VERY strong fields in America.
My brother Chris works in the Information Technology field. He's done electronic security work, and now does Voip/voice-data work, all that combined voice/data that companies like Verizon, Sprint, etc are offering.
The Tech Bubble (a BUBBLE that NEVER SHOULD'VE EXISTED) didn't "kill of any field." It merely took down IT jobs that were done, largely by folks who probably should've remained window washers and short order cooks.
As my brother said, "If you left IT after 2000, it's because you didn't have the skills to compete in an increasingly competitive field. The IT job market has boomed since 2004, those who didn't get back in were those who shouldn't have been in, in the first place."
That seems like a blunt, but fairly accurate assessment to me.
The Democratic Congress is once again considering RAISING the H-1B Visa Limit...a wise choice. If they do that, rein in the AMT, and don't undermine the WoT, I'm going to be very pleasantly surprised...and maybe once again proud that I've remained a registered Democrat.
Duh hurrr, hyuk, if wad I be sayin' was true, den why did all dem American college stoodents leave Compooter Science, hyuk! Look like dah need for cheep labor interfered wid dah natural "free market" process dat would hab gibben us technological supeerioridy fo' DECADES ON END!
Hyuk! Greed be good doh, so it for da best! Fuck America!
Comments
The congressional approval rate has plummeted as Dems fail to calcify a spine and stop Bush from destroying the country.
Why don't they just use the "nuclear option" to stop debate? Hell, it was the Repugs idea, so go with it now.
Evil prevails as good people do nothing. We voted for change, and they just don't have the guts to spank the Monkey.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 21, 2007 12:44 AM
Or you can average the two ratings and come up with 23%.
Posted by: fred | June 21, 2007 08:50 AM
Yes, 23% is probaby in line with the approval rating most people would give government overall.
However, that is probably due more to perception than any current reality.
The economy is doing well and yet there's a sense of foreboding among many people.
We haven't been attacked on US soil in almost six years (thanks to an aggressive military WoT abroad and strong domestic policies at home, like the Patriot Act) and the Dems have upped the Min Wage...and...and...well, they haven't done anything catastrophically stupid like defunding the troops or raising taxes.
It seems much of the low approval of government overall is due to (1) an uneasy sense of bad times ahead and (2) the sense of rampant bipartisan corruption.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 09:11 AM
...along with--in no particular order-- 3) many years of excessive federal spending on garbage (in recent times, a one-party fiscal orgy); 4) creating new, sure-to-burgeon bureaucracies like Medicare Rx and Dept of Homeland Security; 5) mangling, bungling and fumbling the wars; and 6) the inept reaction to Katrina.
Posted by: fred | June 21, 2007 10:06 AM
Well that pretty much accounts for the anti-Bush sentiment (32%) Fred, I suppose the William Jefferson (D-La) scandal, the enduring corruption (ie. Pelosi initially giving her big donor StarKist Tuna a pass on the Min Wage by excluding Guam from the scope of that Bill), the proposed tax hikes, the proposed EVEN MORE wasteful & excessive spending by Democrats accounts for the anti-Dem Congress sentiment (14%).
And personally, I LIKE the Dept of Homeland Security. It addresses a common problem with those various and sundry security agencies - lack of communication and cooperation.
While the Feds still barely tolerate local law enforcement (and vice versa), at least the CIA, NSA, FBI and ICE (formerly the INS) all interface regularly as members of the same agency.
On the excessive spending side, I too lament the reckless over-spending (on the NCLB Act & the prescription drug boondoggle - Medicare Rx) BUT that's all the more reason to eschew the Democrats who in every case, wanted even MORE spending and ever more bureaucracy.
I'll acknowledge that I WANT security spending at this juncture. What I really don't want is any old school 60's-styled "social spending." It's counterproductive, as it creates more dependence among recipients and so it's "reckless" by its very nature.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 10:34 AM
JMK, you are such a joke. Bush and his rubber stamp congress took a surplus and spent it into an astounding deficit, siphoning endless billions to their cronies under the guise of "fighting terrorism".
To hear that idiot Chimp suddenly start squawking about "reining in wild democrat spending" makes me want to puke. The bastard can't find his veto pen to stop any spending, but leaps into action to stop stem cell research and keep using our troops as cannon fodder for oil companies in Iraq.
If congress would impeach Chimp, their approval rating would soar. We have a dry-drunk smirking frat boy running the country, and the results are to be expected: disaster.
The economy is only great for Wall Street. Companies are making record profits gouging Americans, and sending off their jobs to hire cheap labor in the third world, where they can pollute and abuse people at will.
Unemployment is only down because they kick people off the role of the unemployed when their benefits run out, not because they found jobs. Of course, many did trade their high paying jobs to work at Wal-Mart.
You wouldn't know. Being a fireman your job and wages are protected by a union, right?
What a hypocrite.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 21, 2007 11:48 AM
If "reckless spending" were the reason that Americans rated Congress even LOWER than the President, then your argument that "If congress would impeach Chimp, their approval rating would soar," might have some merit, but that's NOT the reason.
There were many Liberal candidates that ran...and lost on the impeachment issue and THAT'S why Schumer and Emmanuel turned to Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats in the last election.
Across the board American INCOMES are UP....not down and welfare rolls, which would've exploded had millions merely been "kicked off the unemployment rolls, despite remining jobless," are DOWN...not up.
As to reining in reckless and irrational spending, take heart, the current President has threatened to veto the Democratic Congress' initial budget on...."wasteful spending."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 01:03 PM
Bush wouldn't let a dime be spend on pro-American programs to help build this country -- but that isn't really about spending.
Bush has spent everything in the bank and mortgaged your grandchildren's future as well, all to pour money into his cronies' pockets under the guise of "war".
No president has ever spent as recklessly as Chimp. You must have him confused with the fiscally conservative Clinton, who built up the surplus that the frat boy wasted.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 21, 2007 01:32 PM
The fact that you consider the one of greatest threats America has ever faced, a very real threat to global domination, by the jihadist forces of Sharia-based Islam, shows how unbalanced you are.
We fought in the Balkans and Halliburton got EVERY contract in that engagement too. No other corporation does the full range of things that Halliburton does. That's why they've gotten all these deals for decades now.
And, no matter who gets in (Hillary or Rudy...or someone else)....we'll have no choice going forward. We're now faced with war...WAR and MORE WAR, at least until strict Sharia-based Islam ceases to be a force for evil in the world.
And THAT will depend very much on how Iraq goes.
If we lose Iraq and the jihadists gain a foothold there, we're probably looking at 100 years of war or more, if miraculously it improves and the American-friendly Iraqi government is stabilized and can push al Qaida out, it may end sooner.
There is no way for ANYONE to argue rationally against this WoT.
We've avoided another domestic attack here because (1) we've engaged this enemy militarily in their own homelands and (2) because we've removed "acts of terrorism" FROM being ajudicated as "crimes," and used extra-legal means to catch suspected terrorists.
Acts of terrorism are NOT "crimes" and terrorists are NOT "criminals," they are soldiers taking part in "unconventional warfare."
That's why the SC has recently approved Military Tribunals rather than US courts trying those charged with terror-related offenses.
This WoT has just gotten started, we haven't even reached a point of high dudgeon yet. Believe me, America will be VERY "war weary" fifty years from now...and there may still, even then, be a long way to go.
And that surplus was built AFTER the Gingrich Congress took office. Congres controls the purse strings.
The "fiscally Conservative Clinton" (he certainly was that) warred with the Liberal Democrat Congress during his first two years in office.
He wisely worked well with the Gingrich Congress, signing onto SEVEN of the TEN plancks of Gingrich's "Contract With America." THAT (Gingrich's Contract) is what made Bill Clinton's Presidency look good.
Of course, this war SHOULD'VE been started back in 1998. It was seriously considered at that time, and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were among two of the many prominent Dems who pushed for it at that time, but it sadly got derailed...UNTIL we were ruthlessly attacked on 9/11/01.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 02:25 PM
Oh, I forget you ingenious Rush Limbaugh device: if it was bad, blame Clinton, if it was good, credit the congress!!!
But hey, pretty much the same congress, with Chimp instead of Clinton, blew the surplus and another half trillion or so ... hmmm, so maybe it WAS Clinton, eh?
However, we agree on one point. There is an enemy. However, instead of wasting the lives of our soldiers and mortgaging our economic future, why don't we just use a few of those thousands of nukes we have already paid for and put an end to this serious threat RIGHT NOW.
Don't you agree that the threat warrants a real war? In a real war you don't hold back. With nukes, it can all be over in a few days.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 21, 2007 02:44 PM
"But hey, pretty much the same congress, with Chimp instead of Clinton (BH)
Spoken like a true ignormaous.
The Congress Bush worked with, had Tom Delay instead of Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich was the best thing to happen to the U.S. Congress in the entire 20th Century.
And no, we're not going to use nukes. even on rogue nations, as many of their neighbors have alliances with us.
Not going to happen, at this point.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 03:04 PM
"Gingrich was the best thing to happen to the U.S. Congress in the entire 20th Century."
Ha ha ha ha. That was a sick joke.
Posted by: Blue Wind | June 21, 2007 03:28 PM
Newt was Speaker till end 1998--Tom DeLay was in putative control for the last 2 years of Clinton.
Pls don't be so much of an ignoramus to glom all the credit to the 1990s GOP Congress without giving equal credit to the Dem in the White House.
Just as one shouldn't slam Clinton for allegedly letting bin Laden run free during the 1990s without similarly slapping down the GOP Congress for burying its own head in the sand (any hearings? any congressional resolutions? any public calls for arms? any significant noise from Capitol Hill excpet 'wag the dog' accusations?)
Posted by: fred | June 21, 2007 03:31 PM
The "Gingrich Revolution" gets the bulk of the credit for the rest of the 1990s (that last year) because the tone set by Gingrich carried the GOP Congress forward at least another year....til the end of '99.
Tom Delay didn't stray from the Gingrich mantra his first two years, it was a gradual process.
Moreover, MY statement "The Congress Bush worked with, had Tom Delay instead of Newt Gingrich," is 100% accurate. No part of that is wrong. So, what are you attempting to take issue with again?
Clinton worked for four years with the GREAT Newt Gingrich, while Bush with a somewhat flawed Tom Delay. In my view, Delay was simply an old style politician like a Tip O'Neill or a Tom Foley. That's NOT all bad, it's just NOT Newt!
Remember Gingrich reformed an "out-of-control" Democratic "Congress in crisis," back in 1995!
The BEST things Bill Clinton did were ALL part of Gingrich's "Contract With America," while the bad things (like the "Hillarycare" debacle and "gays in the Military") were all Democratic in origin.
It's imperative for each of us, no matter what side of the political spectrum we fall to acknowledge true greatness - Gingrich had and has it.
When Clinton cooperated with the Gingrich plan, he had some too.
I gave Clinton some credit in all my above posts, now it's incumbent upon folks like yourself to give Gingrich his well-deserved props as well.
He is "America's Elder Statesman" today.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 06:41 PM
So BH, you really get a chub overusing the monikers 'Chimp' and 'Frat Boy'. Heh
Ever actually read your own comments? You and BW worry the hell out of me because I know it's people like you who voted last November;Disillusioned, illogical, misled sheep of the Media Shepard. It makes me shake my head because it's sad.
And no I won't participate in posting fact after fact that you'll ignore anyway.
You have no grasp of facts and you obviously aren't going to change your mind anymore than you can change mine with your nonsense rambling.
Just getting my 2-bits(inflation, ya know) in. JMK doesn't need my help to debunk your misinformation.
Posted by: Dan O | June 21, 2007 08:32 PM
Posted by Bailey:
Oh, I forget you ingenious Rush Limbaugh device: if it was bad, blame Clinton, if it was good, credit the congress!!!
Proof of that, Bailey? In truth, Rush never said that nor played that game. Feel free to prove me wrong with data from unbiased sources and not your mind, OK?
Oh, and if what you may quote happens to be true (i.e. a GOP congress leading WJC to the trough on matters such as welfare reform), that doesn't count because it's a correct analogy!
Posted by: mal | June 21, 2007 10:35 PM
"Gingrich was the best thing to happen to the U.S. Congress in the entire 20th Century." (JMK)
"Ha ha ha ha. That was a sick joke." (BW)
Actually Gingrich was a truly awesome figure BW!
He took an out-of control Congress in Crisis and turned it around with a series of sweeping reforms.
He convinced a Supply-Side, Centrist Democrat (Bill Clinton) to go along with 70% of the "Contract With America," which included spending reductions and welfare reform and he got the GOP Congress to sign onto term limits.
If he hadn't stepped down he'd probably have been able to have forced those term limits through.
Once old school Tom Delay took over Term Limits were out and the old school politics that Gingrich reviled and reformed were back.
Like I said earlier, Delay was an old style politician, just like a Tip O'Neill or a Tom Foley. Newt Gingrich was an idealist, an educator and a reformer.
Those who despise Gingrich, hate common sense, people-oriented reforms. Those Dems who despised Delay, merely wish he were "on their team."
Don't get sucked into the nonsense that "Gingrich is a flawed man."
So what!?
ALL great men are greatly flawed!
Martin Luther King was a plagiarist and a womanizer.
JFK was a heavy drinker, a man addicted to pain killers (from his back injury) and also a womanizer.
Thomas Jefferson himself was a womanizer and a rogue.
Again, great men usually have great flaws. Gingrich is a towering figure, far more erudite and even more passionate about real reform than either King or Kennedy, in my view.
For anyone who sought out real, meaningful government reform, Newt Gingrich should be an icon. He was and remains the last best hope for that kind of people-oriented reform.
Posted by: JMK | June 21, 2007 11:14 PM
LOL! Look at them circle their little pink wagons, knees knocking, holding hands for support ... even coming to defend the honor of fathead felon drug addict Rush Limbaugh!
You know you are winning when they have to form a support group.
I like how JMK is their "facts" champion! I post endless links to unbiased sites, and he gives out hazy, unsubstantiated Rush quotes with no references: yep, that's a fact!
JMK has "discredited" me by what? By saying that it was all the congress, but when that turned out to be false, he says "Well, Foley didn't follow Gingrich!" and then when that didn't work he pulls out of his ass "Well, Foley did follow Gingrich for two years, but then he stopped!"
LOL! Good god, is this the bastion of facts and logic I am up against? Is this the Conservative Champion they are all going to follow!
Good for you, JMK. I'm proud of you. Never did a man with so little go so far in the minds of other small minded people!
Hip hip, horay!
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 22, 2007 01:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Ethics sanctions
Gingrich as speaker
Gingrich was first accused of unethical behavior when he accepted an advance as part of a book deal as well as numerous other counts. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes and using the GOPAC political action committee as a slush fund; see Joseph Gaylord. Gingrich retained former U.S. Representative Edwin Bethune of Arkansas, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and lobbyist, to represent him.
Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich admitted that he had violated House rules and accepted the house committee's recommendation for punishment.[20] [21] Gingrich was sanctioned for $300,000[22] after the House Ethics Committee concluded that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules.[23] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.[24]
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 22, 2007 01:21 PM
"JMK has "discredited" me by what? By saying that it was all the congress, but when that turned out to be false, he says "Well, Foley didn't follow Gingrich!" and then when that didn't work he pulls out of his ass "Well, Foley did follow Gingrich for two years, but then he stopped!" (Barely Hanging)
You must be a bit flumoxed Barely, because actually I'm the ONLY ONE of the two of us who's ever documented my arguments with articles, many from the NY Times (a Liberal standard - they documented Saddam's "Detterence by Doubt" strategy), while YOU'VE posted articles that have consistently document MY arguments - you posted an article that showed H-1B Visa limits rising TWICE under the Clinton administration and DECLINING back to their original levels under G W Bush.
Ironically enough, the current Democratic Congress is now considering...yep, raising those H-1B Visa limits AGAIN!
And you recently posted an article that confirmed my contention (and debunked yours) that RICO statutes only allow for the confiscation of ill-gotten assetts AFTER conviction...and I said "thanks."
As to the above misconceptions of yours, I never said Speaker Foley preceeded Speaker Gingrich, nor did I say he followed Gingrich....I rightly claimed that Tom Delay (he was the Republian who followed Newt as the GOP's titular leader in Congress) scuttled Newt's reforms after Gingrich resigned.
In point of fact, Tom Foley was the Democratic Speaker of the House who followed the scandal-scarred Democrat Jim Wright and preceeded the great Newt Gingrich.
Posted by: JMK | June 22, 2007 01:29 PM
No JMK, I said that a million foreigners held H1B visas under Bush, and I was 100% correct, and I linked to prove it.
So, basically I was 100% correct in exactly what I said ... THEN, you distorted it by PRETENDING I said something I didn't -- see how that works? Everybody else sees it, Chimp Jr.
In fact, the article I link COMPLETELY DESTROYED your argument that the government didn't confiscate property and assets from people convicted of no crime, and you started HIDING BEHIND the idea that confiscation=transfer of ownership.
Confiscated does NOT equal transfer of ownership. To confiscate is only to take possession of, by authority. Once again, since you are completely defeated by facts, you try to confuse the issue with incorrect definitions to try and worm yourself out of looking as stupid as you always look.
Foley, Delay -- heh, well I did make a mistake. Wow, you got me that time, I did say Foley when I meant Delay.
Wow, you win! That means you are 100% right on all facts, because I obviously said Foley when I meant Delay.
Another victory for you, Ace!
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 22, 2007 04:43 PM
Barely, your own article showed that H-1B Visas went from around 50,000 in 1992 to slightly over 1 MILLION by 2000, after TWO consecutive limit (first from 65,000/year to 95,000/year, then to 165,000/year) increases signed into law by Bill Clinton (and rightly so) in the midst of the Tech Bubble.
It also showed that the H-1B Visa limit was reduced back to it's initial 65,000/year default position by the current administration as soon as they came up for renewal.
THAT was bad, as H-1B Visa workers (1) DO NOT reduce incomes for American workers, as they address serious "structural unemployment" issues and (2) many U.S. industries (ie financial services, etc) face such structural unemployment issues.
And YES, the current Dem Congress is seriously considering RAISING the limit once again...and I support that!
CONFISCATION is NOT, as you've alleged, "the SAME as "freezing assetts deemed by a court to be ill-gotten." IN point of FACT, such assetts can be frozen only AFTER a Grand Jury indictment (NOT "suspicion," as you've alleged) and they can be CONFISCATED (TAKEN to you) only AFTER conviction (again NOT "based on suspicion" as you've alleged).
Barely, you're as WRONG on RICO as you were on the H-1B Visa program, and that's utterly and completely wrong!
And above, I mentioned Delay only as he became the titular head of the GOP Congress after Gingrich...and he undid most of Newt Gingrich's reforms....again, you seemed to miss the actual point of what I was saying.
Posted by: JMK | June 22, 2007 06:14 PM
Thanks stupid, you just agreed that what I said was true: under Bush we had 1 million foreign H1B workers.
I rest my case, thanks.
The H1B program killed an entire American industry, causing American student to abandon Computer Science and damaging this country now and far into the future while endlessly enriching India at our expense, all for the short term gain of the traitor corporations you worship.
The H1B program is anti free market. Allowing only employeers (but not employees) to circumvent market forces and artifically lower salaries and transfer expertise to foreigners, instead of producing high salaries and drawing our own children into a lucrative field, which would have producted hundreds of thousands of American computer scientists, ensuring our technological edge perpetually.
Your trouble, JMK, is that you hate America. You love corporations, but you hate America.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | June 23, 2007 01:03 AM
Yes indeed, Bush inherited that 1 MILLION H-1B Visa workers.
The limits were RIGHTLY raised TWICE between 1993 and 2000 (from 65,000/yr to 195,000/yr), increasing the number of H-1B Visa workers FROM about 50,000 in 1993 to about 1 MILLION in 2000.
The Bush administration WRONGLY reduced those limits BACK to their original/default numbers (65,000/year).
America still faces a lot of structural unemployment. We have more accounting jobs, for instance, than trained accountants to do them.
Accountants make very good money. Senior Managers, in major firms, routinely earn $150,000/year or more. Raising that figure to $200,000/year, or more, ISN'T going to magically create MORE accountants and businesses can't wait years for schools to start churning out more, that works needs to get done NOW.
Ergo, the H-1B Visa which helps to alleviate the problem of Structural Unemployment, while DOING NOTHING to reduce US worker wage rates.
Computer science and IT are today VERY strong fields in America.
My brother Chris works in the Information Technology field. He's done electronic security work, and now does Voip/voice-data work, all that combined voice/data that companies like Verizon, Sprint, etc are offering.
The Tech Bubble (a BUBBLE that NEVER SHOULD'VE EXISTED) didn't "kill of any field." It merely took down IT jobs that were done, largely by folks who probably should've remained window washers and short order cooks.
As my brother said, "If you left IT after 2000, it's because you didn't have the skills to compete in an increasingly competitive field. The IT job market has boomed since 2004, those who didn't get back in were those who shouldn't have been in, in the first place."
That seems like a blunt, but fairly accurate assessment to me.
The Democratic Congress is once again considering RAISING the H-1B Visa Limit...a wise choice. If they do that, rein in the AMT, and don't undermine the WoT, I'm going to be very pleasantly surprised...and maybe once again proud that I've remained a registered Democrat.
Posted by: JMK | June 23, 2007 12:20 PM
Duh hurrr, hyuk, if wad I be sayin' was true, den why did all dem American college stoodents leave Compooter Science, hyuk! Look like dah need for cheep labor interfered wid dah natural "free market" process dat would hab gibben us technological supeerioridy fo' DECADES ON END!
Hyuk! Greed be good doh, so it for da best! Fuck America!
Posted by: JMK | July 8, 2007 01:31 AM