Say Anything Blog

Puzzle,

What’s so heart-warming about this story is the idea of you, a devout leftist and crass, unthinking union apologist, would imply such concern for the “deathly ill” John Ashcroft.  The very idea that you, and Dana Milbank, would have have any sort of concern for Ashcroft has an indescribably sweet and creamy flavor.

Of course, Milbank lost any credibility he might have had when he continued to parrot Joe Wilson’s lies long after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its report detailing Wilson’s unfamiliarity with the truth.

As for the NSA surveillance program, ultimately the Supreme Court will decide its constitutionality.  Heaven knows Judge Anna Diggs Tayor did nothing but embarrass herself and whatever law school she attended.  But regardless, the effectiveness of the program, and what it has accomplished have more than justified its implementation.

No doubt about it, though.  John Ashcroft will be delighted to read about your concern.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

But regardless, the effectiveness of the program, and what it has accomplished have more than justified its implementation.

Perhaps...we have no way of knowing really one way or the other just as we have no way of knowing for sure whether the program was legal or not until the details of the program become public. What is interesting though is your lack of comment on the image of two senior WH officials, having been rebuffed by the acting AG, visiting a groggy AG in hospital in an attempt to obtain his concurrence with the program.

It’s quite appalling behaviour really. I suppose the ends justifies the means for some people in some circumstances but it’s quite a telling episode.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Wow B1, killing the messenger is so you. I see you didn’t dispute any of the facts of what the nightcrawlers did so you condone violation of the US Constitution if it meets your needs. So it is ok for Cheney/Card/Gonzales to violate the law as decided by their own Justice department. 

A really sad commentary on how you will allow the Constitution to be violated what else will you allow?  The taking away of guns?  How about your right to vote?  or maybe the right to face your accusers? 
As you wrote: 

the effectiveness of the program, and what it has accomplished have more than justified its implementation.

It is time for Alberto Gonzales to be impeached.

Bat

What’s so heart-warming about this story is the idea of you, a devout leftist and crass, unthinking union apologist, would imply such concern for the “deathly ill” John Ashcroft

Funny this illegal trampling of the 4th amendment that all you overzealous traitors support was denied by Ashcroft and the others. Goes to show how no amount of BS can cover up the fact that it was and continues to be ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Frankly, its comperable to the left taking our guns away. Its outlawed in the constitution. When we begin rationalizing away our constitution, whether its gutting and trashing the 4th or enforcing any gun laws (the constituion and the federalist papers pretty much say NONE shall be made), ALL IS LOST.

ALL YOU 4TH AMENDMENT BASHERS NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

Gonzales = Lame d[f]uck AG. The foremost justice official in our country is a liar and pays no heed to the constitution… and the President and people here on SA are apologists for that. Abismal performace by all.

Bat
You really should be slapped and have a bucket of cold water dumped over your head for proffering this in defense of maligning the constitution:

the effectiveness of the program, and what it has accomplished have more than justified its implementation

BULLSHIT. You, John Hoof, and the ‘Turtles’ should all get together and do a flag burning or something.

Sparkie,

First, your indignant opinion notwithstanding (it has no more value than mine, after all… if that much), the question of the NSA surveillance program’s constitutionality is hardly a settled issue.

Those who insist that the program is a violation of the 4th Amendment, you, Mike, and the ever-odious Puzzlefoot included, have yet to offer the name of one single victim whose rights have been violated… not one!  Fact is, there are probably as many scholars, pundits, and assorted “experts” on the Right who have questions and/or reservations about the program, as there are those on the Left who decried “Judge” Anna Diggs Taylor’s pitifully sophomoric and legally incoherent opinion as a work unworthy of even a modestly capable first year law student.  The question thus remains open.

But that said, I really don’t much care.  I don’t hold Supreme Court rulings to be the secular equivalent of Holy Scriptures anyway.  By decree of the Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sanford was once the law of the land.  And before the abomination that was the Roe v. Wade ruling, Griswold was supreme.  So its not as though a Supreme Court ruling equates to “...now and forever, Amen” in any case.

Instead, I’d prefer a more realistic approach.  As has been suggested by a substantial number of legal scholars, and specifically stated in In re: Sealed Cases, the president, any president, has certain powers inherent to his constitutionally-mandated role as Commander-in-Chief… powers which can no more be legislated away than can the president’s authority to nominate federal judges, and the Senate’s authority and duty to vote its approval or disapproval of his nominations.

Certainly this country is at war, although most Democrats are loathe to acknowledge the fact.  And just as certainly, the National Security Agency is a military command… its director (DIRNSA) has always been a flag officer since the agency’s inception.  Thus, there seems to be little question that the subject surveillance program clearly falls within the president’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-chief.

That may be an inconvenience to devoutly sanctimonious libertarians such as you, to faithful liberal congregants such as Mike, and to querulous
partisan hacks such as Puzzlefoot, but I’m more than confident that those august wise men on the Court will see it much the same way… at least for now.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat...I want to correct your impression of my opinion. I don’t know whether the program is constitutional or not. I do suspect that the program violated FISA which, in the absence of a contrary court opinion, is still the law of the land but in the absence of all of the facts it’s conjecture on my part. Your interpretation of the President’s constitutional powers is certainly shared by other supporters of the program but I’m sure you’d agree that your opinion is not shared by all legal observers, scholars, opinion givers, etc.

As a progressive minded Canadian I have no problem with the State conducting surveillance of its citizens when circumstances warrant but there have to be safeguards in place. I have a lot of trust and faith in government but they’re not limitless and the loyal citizen takes his rights and responsibilities seriously.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

In the first place, there is no “legal trampling” of the Fourth Amendment by surveilling foreign terrorists and those who consort with them.  One of the primary responsibilities of govt in our representative republic is to protect us from our enemies.  If that isn’t done, the Constitution will be meaningless.  In case all you BDS afflicted lefties have forgotten, what we are talking about here is monitoring of the microwave spectrum for certain key words and phrases, which is done by computer.  If those words/phrases are detected, then surveillance is initiated, thus satisfying “probable cause”.  Further establishment of probable cause is satisfied by survelling those already known to be either terrorists or who have terrorist connections.  You fools act as if every American citizen is being subjected to surveillance; that is a lie.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

It’s quite appalling behaviour really. I suppose the ends justifies the means for some people in some circumstances but it’s quite a telling episode.

As far as believing that this actually took place, I will wait until I see the video, and if it’s proven to be genuine.  The leftie MSM who brought us the Dan Rather phony memo and the Reuters fauxtography can’t be trusted to tell the truth, especially when it involves this Administration.

Lefties lie; it’s all they have.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

As far as believing that this actually took place, I will wait until I see the video, and if it’s proven to be genuine.  The leftie MSM who brought us the Dan Rather phony memo and the Reuters fauxtography can’t be trusted to tell the truth, especially when it involves this Administration.

Comey is no lefty.  He testified in front of Congress to this.

Mike,

First of all, as always… well, almost… I appreciate the candor and thoughtfulness of your comments.  It is certainly a refreshing change from the usual manic belligerence that spews from the left side of the spectrum.

The problems with the NSA program, once we get past the rhetoric, are three-fold.  The first, as established by the precedent Able Danger program, is that the law has once again failed to keep up with the available technology.  This is hardly unexpected as our judicial system does not issue edicts or advisory opinions.  Judges rule only when a legitimate case is before them.

The second area of dispute is that of the president’s powers.  If this program is found, rightly in my estimation, to fall under the president’s authority as Commander-in-Chief, then FISA simply does not apply, nor does any other legislation.  That simple fact has already been addressed in ”Sealed Cases.” Legislation cannot diminish, obviate, remove or restrict a president’s constitutional authority.  Congress cannot decide one day, for example, that henceforth Supreme Court justices will be nominated by the chairman of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee, and then approved or rejected by the full Senate.  Similarly, FISA cannot limit or restrict the president’s war time powers as Commander-in-chief.

The final problem, as I see it, is that those who are thoughtfully critical of the NSA program (as opposed to the shrill, partisan, cranks who would disparage anything this president said or did) are implicitly viewing the controversy from a law enforcement or criminal justice perspective.  And doing so with the notion that there is no war going on, and thus no need to consider the question of war time authority.  The appellate court decisions in In re: Sealed Cases, and in other such FISA-related cases, such as Truong take careful note of the distinction, both in purpose and in application.  But today’s critics are, conveniently, not nearly so intellectually discriminatory, preferring to assume that the NSA program falls under criminal justice guidelines and criteria, rather than those of war time intelligence gathering operations.

Ultimately, all three concerns will have to be addressed, presumably before the Supreme Court.  Technology is certainly not about to take a giant leap backward.  The threat of Islamic terrorism is hardly likely to disappear, despite the wishful, and wistful, thinking of the self-delusional Democrats.  And the question of presidential authority, central to this whole debate, will have to be adjudicated by grown-ups, and not some hack like the pathetically inept Anna Diggs Taylor.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk, R108 will now claim that Comey is a leftie and continue saying that lefties lie.  Not only is R108 a rightwing whack Bush apologist but everyone is lying if it affects Bush in anyway.  I don’t hear the White House denying anything.  The silence is deafening.  Did Ashcroft deny it took place and come to the defense of Cheney/Gonzales/Card?  no.  Did FBI director come to the defense of Cheney/Gonzales/Card?  Where are all the rightie blogs with their defense of this?  hm..... I guess you’re hanging out there all on your own R108.  What a rightwingnutjob you are.

Comey is no lefty.  He testified in front of Congress to this.

So, because he “is no lefty"(as you claim), he must be telling the truth?  Interesting premise.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Hawk, R108 will now claim that Comey is a leftie and continue saying that lefties lie.

You lie again, P.  I said no such thing.  None of that changes the fact that lefties lie; that’s all they have.  You have just given us a perfect example.  Thank you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Hawk/P: Since I am not a partisan thinker like the both of you, the claimed Party affiliation of the liar makes no difference to me.  The only thing that counts is whether they are telling the truth.  The story is a bit fantastic, and plays right into the most fevered fantasies of the BDS/leftie crowd, so I would have to see some more proof, which I doubt will be forthcoming.  I repeat: I’ll wait for the video.  Of course, no one has ever lied to Congress or the American people(Bill Clinton).

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

R108, what a whopper that was:

Since I am not a partisan thinker like the both of you

Man, your nose must have grown a mile with that one.  I can’t stop laughing. In all the time on this blog, I don’t believe I ever read one statement from you supporting a democratic (as in Democratic party) principle.  It has almost always been Republican/rightwing.  You have supported whatever Bush has said or done with nary a word against him.  Most if not all your comments have been negative towards Democrats.  If that isn’t partisan, then you had better look up the word. 

I just don’t know what to tell you do now to get that huge nose of yours around. Thanks for my laugh of the day.  Woooeeeee that was a good one!

I don’t believe I ever read one statement from you supporting a democratic (as in Democratic party) principle.

Puzzle,

Forgive my harping on the obvious, but since when did the Democrat Party acquire anything remotely resembling principles?

Talk about a “laugh of the day” I haven’t heard anything so funny since John Kerry put on his uniform, Magic Hat and all, and reported for duty.  About the only thing more ludicrous than the notion of Democrat Party principles would be the idea that Democrats support our troops.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One, I just wanted to thank you for a particularly well thought out commentary on the problems with intellectually honest progressive criticisms of the surveillance program.  That could have been a front-page post.

The idea that the fourth amendment applies only to law enforcement and not to intelligence cases I believe is flawed.  It applies to all invasions of persons, houses, places or effects by the government, whether under the guise of law enforcement or prosecution of a war. 

However that is not the issue involved with Gonzales and Card going to the bedside of Ashcroft.  When they went there they knew he did not have the authority to sign any paperwork.  The person who had the authority refused to sign so they tried to circumvent the system.  It shows no respect for the justice system or the rule of law.

“...under the guise...”?

No bias there. /sarcasm

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I don’t believe I ever read one statement from you supporting a democratic (as in Democratic party)
principle.

That doesn’t mean that I make my judgements on a partisan basis.  I don’t support all the aspects of the Republican Party, either.  It’s about the truth for me.  The Dems, in their present Clinton/extreme leftie orientation, just never represent anything that I can identify as either true or congruent with the founding principles of America.  Understand?
If the Dems ever come back to America, and if one or more of them support American principles, I will say so.  Until then, I’ll wait for the video, as I have said twice before.  In your partisan ad hominem lust, you have forgotten the original thread.
My example proves the truth of what I said.  You maintain that Comey “is no lefty”, and yet I still consider him a liar.  Do logic much?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bat One...let me second Carrick’s admiration for your thoughtful argument. You seem to know more than most observers what the program entailed, how it was implemented and who it targeted. I’m working from the position of inferior knowledge...I’ve read snippets of this and that but, as I indicate, I can really only speculate as to the whats, whos and hows...I don’t even have a handle on how many programs or versions of a program we’re talking about.

As for your three general points of interest, I agree with you on the law and technology and I agree with you on the Presidential powers if I accept your premises as laid out. I’m not an American legal scholar but I believe that you overstate the relevant differences between war time and peace time powers. I agree that your courts have identified that the circumstances are different depending which condition exists but I’m not so confident that the Executive powers are as sopen ended and far reaching as you believe. I agree that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide although I wonder down the road whether the war on terror will enjoy the “war status” that it does currently in many circles. Your complaint that terrorism is not a law enforcement issue but a war issue is still hard for me to swallow...I admit it’s complex and requires more than the traditional law enforcement mindset but clearly to approach it solely as an issue of war is not right either. This approach leads to the kind of overkill measures that may or may not include surveillance programs, denial of habeous corpus, etc.

Good stuff though...thanks for your excellent remarks.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

r108...I would take your protests more seriously if you didn’t claim Clinton to be a leftist. That’s too silly for words IMO.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

R108 writes: 

You maintain that Comey “is no lefty”, and yet I still consider him a liar.  Do logic much?

Yes I do do logic.  Do you cite any facts to support your contention,I have yet to read one.  You claim he is a liar but have absolutely no proof.  So unbecoming of you.  Think much?

P: You have no evidence that he is telling the truth.  The burden of proof is always on the accuser.  In the absence of truth, I consider him a liar.  I notice you don’t deal with your lie about my thinking.  Interesting, and revealing.  You try to distract with more BS.
You see, my point was that you said I was a partisan thinker, but I accused someone you consider to be a Republican a liar, so your accusation is untrue.  Whether I’m right or wrong about Comey is beside the point.  The point is that I didn’t make a judgment on a partisan basis.  Get it?  Your statement about me was a lie.

MikeA: With his big govt programs, corruption at every level and nosebleed tax increase(retroactive, at that), Clinton is a textbook leftie.  Furthermore, he made a statement about no giving back an overly large tax increase because we “might not do the right thing with it”, which is purely socialistic thinking.  We have no right to spend our own money; Clinton and his big govt can do a better job than we can.  How leftie can you get?  Oh, yes; sending Sandy Berger to steal secret files that told the truth about Clinton’s lax approach to terrorism; I almost forgot that one.  I’m still waiting for his “middle class tax cut”, which was one of his big campaign promises in ‘92.  I’ve got a million of ‘em.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

...Executive powers are as sopen ended and far reaching as you believe.

I hope the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has powers enough to defend the country in wartime.  I don’t consider that either “open-ended” or “far-reaching”.  If he fails to protect the country(like Clinton), he doesn’t deserve the job.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I’m still laughing R108 that you claim to be a nonpartisan thinker.  Comey is a republican he claims it himself.  I didn’t see anyone from the WhiteHouse or Tony Snow calling Comey a liar.  In fact the silence from the White House is deafening.  If he were lying, they’d be all over it and so would the right wing blogs.  yet they are all pretty silent as well.  Usually what happens when there is nothing to attack.  But as usual you default to you typical lying leftie meme.  Such drivvel.

With his big govt programs, corruption at every level and nosebleed tax increase(retroactive, at that), Clinton is a textbook leftie.

Bigger government than Carter or Reagan or Bush II? I don’t think the facts bear you out. Corruption is hardly a practise exclusive to the left and , while I don’t know about Clinton’s tax increase so I will take your word for it, the Republicans’ decision not to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent says to me that even they see value in trying to achieve a balanced budget.

Perhaps by “leftie” you mean anyone who recognises a greater role for the State than you envision? That would explain your howler.

I also hope your President has enough powers to defend your nation in wartime. It doesn’t seem to have posed a problem in the 225 plus years of America’s existence although if one views jihadist terror as the greatest threat the West has never known then I understand your willingness to adopt a safer rather than sorry posture.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

You have no evidence that he is telling the truth.  The burden of proof is always on the accuser.

He is not an accuser, he is a witness.  He was called to testify before congress and he did so.  What now needs to happen is have Alberto Gonzales, Andy Card, Mueller, Ashcroft and Ashcroft’s wife testify in front of Congress.

MikeAdamson - ...the Republicans’ decision not to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent says to me that even they see value in trying to achieve a balanced budget.

Question: When a store wants to make money do they
A.) Have a sale (tax cut)
B.) Raise prices (tax increase)

Answer: A!

I’m still laughing R108 that you claim to be a nonpartisan thinker.

R108’s truthful too. (wink)

nosebleed tax increase

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

lik...you make it sound so easy I’m almost tempted to switch sides. If our shop’s new low prices attract enough volume to compensate for the lower per unit revenue then we do indeed make more money but if it doesn’t generate sufficient volume then we don’t. I’ll leave the discussion of voodoo economics for another day.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

If our shop’s new low prices attract enough volume to compensate for the lower per unit revenue then we do indeed make more money...

Yeah, it’s amazing. That’s exactly what happens every time tax RATES are cut.

We’re not actually lucky enough to get our taxes cut. We usually just get the rates cut. (Taxes are notoriously long lived.)

...but if it doesn’t generate sufficient volume then we don’t. I’ll leave the discussion of voodoo economics for another day.

Weird that you refer to reality as “voodoo”.

I guess you’re not too serious about the subject. Go ahead and now stick your head back into the sand.

It seems pretty clear that we’re still above the optimal tax rates right now.  Since the last tax cut boosted revenues so much so fast one would have to think that we’ve got a long way to go.

Since lower tax rates lead to more revenue for the government let alone higher standards of living for most of the people you have to wonder why the lefties aren’t in favor of cutting tax rates.

Oh wait, I know why they want to discourage success because it’s not fair.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

If our shop’s new low prices attract enough volume to compensate for the lower per unit revenue then we do indeed make more money but if it doesn’t generate sufficient volume then we don’t.

That’s right, and whether or not you make money depends on a lot of other factors.  In the tax situation, it depends on the size of the rate cut, and how high taxes were to begin with.

If you take a substantial amount of per-citizen money away from the government and put it back in the pockets of citizens those citizens are going to increase their economic activity in response.  And since we tax most forms of economic activity in this country, that means more tax revenues for the government.

I’d agree that tax rate cuts don’t always pay for themselves, but denying that they can pay for themselves is just nonsense.  They can, in the right conditions, and President Bush’s tax cuts certainly have.

But here’s where we seem to be disconnected, Mike: When we talk of balancing the budget (which we both appreciate as something very, very necessary) your solution always seems to be to raise taxes, whereas mine (and most who think as I do) is to cut unnecessary spending.

To argue that we need to raise taxes to balance the budget is to argue that all forms of government waste have been stripped from the budget.  Can you really make that argument?  And if not, then why don’t you argue to cut that waste before we take more money from the taxpayers?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The government’s been growing spending much faster than the rate of inflation.  Why don’t they make some sacrifices for once.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Rob - I’d agree that tax rate cuts don’t always pay for themselves, but denying that they can pay for themselves is just nonsense.

That’s their language and their agenda. Taxes aren’t supposed to “pay for themselves”. You pay for spending, not for tax cuts.

As a Canadian I have the good fortune to live in a balanced budget situation which has been brought on largely through appropriate tax rates, prudent government expenditure cuts and a relatively boisterous economy. I don’t think only raising taxes is the road to balanced books and I’ve never claimed that it is. I believe it was Bush Sr. who made “voodoo economics” famous and he was right...tax cuts put more dollars in people’s pockets but that doesn’t mean that it puts more in the government’s coffers too. Rob is correct when he says that it might do so one time and it might not another...it’s not an enduring economic principle is what I’m trying to say.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Carrick, Mike,

Thank you both for the kind words.  The compliments mean all that much more coming as they do from from each of you, whose works and thoughts I admire… even when we disagree.

Mike, you are correct that I have a modest amount of working knowledge about this.  Somewhere I have an old piece of paper with some highly complimentary words on it, addressed to me and signed by one of those Flag officers who worked at the Ft. Meade “Puzzle Palace.”

...although I wonder down the road whether the war on terror will enjoy the “war status” that it does currently in many circles. Your complaint that terrorism is not a law enforcement issue but a war issue is still hard for me to swallow...I admit it’s complex and requires more than the traditional law enforcement mindset but clearly to approach it solely as an issue of war is not right either. This approach leads to the kind of overkill measures that may or may not include surveillance programs, denial of habeaus corpus, etc.

Taking your points backwards for a moment, I don’t see the NSA surveillance program, or the question of habeaus corpus for terrorist detainees to be instances of “overkill” in any way.  Even if you accept the most literal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, there is no presumption that non-uniformed, illegal combatant detainees are to be afforded the right of habeaus corpus.  NSA, of course, we have already discussed.  If it were actually targeting American citizens, then I too would be opposed.  But it is not, despite what the NYT and the rest of the MSM might be pleased to have us all believe.

Now then, as to the “war status” of the War on Islamist terrorism and the question of a war approach versus a “Law and Order” approach, a few points, if I may.

Eight or nine months ago, I noted that the Democrats’ objections weren’t really limited to the war in Iraq, but to the whole idea of a global war of any sort… regardless of what the radical Islamists of al Qaeda and other such groups do.  Events have borne out that sad prediction.  Consider, which Democrat candidate has made national defense, border security, or defense against Islamist terrorism against the US and western civilization, a significant cornerstone of his/her campaign?  Which candidate has offered any cogent suggestions for defeating those who have literally sworn a blood oath to destroy us?  Which candidate has even intimated that this country must fulfill its obligations to the defense of Israel, and that the “Palestinian” people have lived up to the obligations they undertook as part of the Oslo accords, and are thus entitled to a state of their own?

Need I go on?  Hardly!  Not one Democrat as done any of the above.  On the contrary.  The Dems are falling all over themselves trying to come up with a means of surrendering without the appearance of surrender.

Too harsh a judgment?  The Dems don’t really want to loose?  Then point me to one example in history in which the winner of an armed conflict was the party that withdrew before the other party yielded or surrendered?  Just one such example.

Fact is, it may be a good thing for a league of T-Ball teams to end their season with each team having won, and lost, the same number of games.  But we aren’t talking about 5 year-olds here.  Our enemies, and they are exactly that, consider their own death to be a glorious statement of devotion to kill as many Americans and Jews as possible in the process.

As for the distinction between the two approaches, I sometimes wonder if the easy way to eliminate any confusion would be to simply shoot those “detainees” instead.  Or at least those who are found to have no discernible intelligence value.  It would be less expensive, and there would be no questions about habeaus corpus cluttering up the rhetorical landscape.  Granted those on the Left would not be pleased, but its hard to see how they could be any less pleased than now… and besides, so what?  There is no one on the Left making any sort of a reasonable argument that they know what, or how, to deal with Islamist terrorists anyway.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Mike, it is an economic principle, however.  Tax rate cuts made in certain identifiable situations can generate more revenue than is lost.

This usually happens when tax rates are above a certain level.

Personally, I’m never in favor of raising taxes until it can be shown to me that there isn’t an area (or areas) where the government is wasting money that the necessary funding can be pulled from.

That should be the criteria for raising taxes.  If you can prove that the government is being reasonably prudent in all other expenditures then you can raise my taxes.

But not before.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mike the reason why it works is that humans aren’t machines.  They make choices due to the risks, effort and subsequent rewards.

As far as the US budget system our problem is out of control entitlement spending. 

From 2001 to 2006 our national revenue has increased 21%.  That’s much faster growth than inflation and all.

There’s no amount of taxes that can keep up with Congress’s appetite for spending. 

Did you ever notice that no matter how many Trillions Congress spends to fix a problem they need that much more the next year?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

P: If I were a partisan thinker, then I would automatically accept what Comey said, because he’s a Republican, but I don’t.  It’s really that simple, if you can think logically, and if you aren’t so afflicted with BDS that you are unable to do simple logic.  I won’t repeat this simple syllogism again.  If you don’t get it by now, don’t mess with it.

MikeA: My two cents worth(a little economic joke) is that it’s all a question of “Who owns the money?” If it is basically the person who earns it, and a fairly small amount goes to govt to support essential services(national defense, roads, etc), then only a minimal amount of taxation is required.  Most of the money stays in the private sector, and the citizens get to balance their budgets and generate prosperity for each other, through the demand economic system of “free people making free choices”.
If you think, like most lefties(including Clinton), that the govt owns the money, then you use most of it, through confiscatory taxation, from those who earn it, and the govt uses their earnings for its own benefit, social programs, entitlements to ensure political power, etc.  Your attitude is that the govt “budget” is more important than the budget of the individual citizen, and we should all “sacrifice” to make sure the govt always has enough money to spend on whatever it wants, and that the political class always has control over the life of the average citizen through controlling the money.

Or, as I often say, “Who decides?”

If it’s the average citizen, through their free choices, you have the Conservative ideal.

If it’s the govt, then you have the leftie ideal.  Clinton, therefore, is a leftie.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bat One

I sometimes wonder if the easy way to eliminate any confusion would be to simply shoot those “detainees” instead.

That would eliminate the confusion alright. I once suggested to r108 that a benevolent dictatorship really is the best of all worlds and, as humbly as I could, offered my services as a kind of philosopher-king. He didn’t seem very taken by the idea and he was probably right.

Rob and TW...I think i will restrict myself to saying that I agree that every government can stand to cut, that there is always excess fat in any large budget be it government or otherwise and that, in theory and often in practice, the more money in the pockets of people than in the pockets of government the better. I’m honestly not a rabid confiscationist (if the word doesn’t exist then it should) but on the other hand I have no doubt that if the economy were to be left completely in the hands of the nongovernmental players the ultimate result would be political instability. An insightful man once said that capitalism will sow the seeds of its own destruction and if left to its own devices I think it would. The growth of the welfare state in the 19th and 20th centuries really pulled the rug out from under Marx and likely ended up saving capitalism from its disagreeable tendencies. There’s no reason not to hold any government’s feet to the fire in an effort to see our taxes wisely spent but the concept of the watchman state is as dead as the dodo, even in America.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I’m still laughing R108 that you claim to be a nonpartisan thinker.

Yet another lie: I said no such thing; in fact, I don’t know what a “non-partisan thinker” means.  What I said was that P was a partisan thinker, and unlike her, I wasn’t.  It was a comparison, not an absolute statement.

This isn’t rocket science.  As a partisan thinker, P evaluates the truth strictly in terms of the political affiliation of the speaker.  Republicans bad(unless they seem to support a leftie), and Dems/union members good.
I don’t base my evaluation on the party affiliation, but on whether or not they are credible.  Of course, it’s very difficult to find a credible leftie these days, but that’s because of their ideology, which leads them to lie in their attempt to grab power.  However, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, so you have a Joe Lieberman, for instance, who gets something right, occasionally.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108...I’ll address that meandering comment to you as well if you promise not to blow a gasket.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, I’m with you...but chafe a bit at the suggestion that I’m for, well, economic anarchy.  I’m not.

I think we can agree that both extremes - be it economic anarchy or a centrally-controlled economy - are unwise.  Where we disagree is where to draw the line between the two.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The following, taken from the American Shareholder Association website, might shed some light on the question of tax cuts and their effect on government revenues. 

For those who believe these tax cuts have hurt the financial position of the federal government, we have run a real live test. Imagine if in January 1997 the Republican Leadership announced they were seeking to cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next 11 years. President Clinton would have been outraged, the media would of told stories about the huge deficit that would be incurred, and the left wing think tanks would have written stories about children dying in the street of hunger.

Well, as a point of fact, over the last 11 years the federal government has cut taxes $1.5 trillion. And today tax revenues are substantially higher than forecasted in 1997 without even taking into consideration that these taxes would be cut.

Why did this happen? Forget the debate about dynamic v. static scoring. 1997 was the first year CBO put out a 10-year forecast of taxes, spending, and growth. CBO’s 10-year economic forecast underestimates economic growth over 10 year periods. As such, the upward revisions in GDP increase the tax revenue baseline upwards. The upward revision is so large that all of the tax cuts can fit into the budget window.

To test this analysis, we have compared CBO’s first 10 year economic and tax revenue forecast with the actual results. During this time, the federal government cut taxes $1.5 trillion and the tech bubble collapsed. Neither of these cases were incorporated into the forecast. The results of our test show: 1) Tax revenues in fiscal year 2007 will be $291 billion higher (12.3 percent) than initially forecasted in 1997 without accounting for the tax cut costs; 2) Tax revenue collections above the baseline is even more significant given the fact that the federal government cut taxes more than any other 10 year period in American history; 3) Accounting for static tax cuts, tax revenue collections came in nearly $547 billion higher, 26.3 percent, above the adjusted baseline.

What is not mentioned in this budget analysis is the economic effect of the events of 9-11.  Furthermore, current latest CBO forecasts have been adjusted even higher again, meaning that current FY2007 revenue projections are well above the previous $291 billion projected, and could well reach $350 billion instead… an additional 2.3% higher than originally projected.

By cutting taxes by $1.5 trillion, we have actually increased revenues to the federal government by roughly $600 billion over what had been projected without the tax cuts, without the tech bubble burst, and without the negative effects of 9-11.

Incidentally, ASA has a similar study for strictly the Capital Gains tax cuts, showing that the reduction in cap gains rate to 15% under the Bush tax cuts didn’t “cost” the US Treasury $5.4 billion during the years 2003-2006 as projected by the Joint Committee on Taxation, but instead resulted in total cap gains collections that were $133 billion higher than originally forecast, for a total “swing of $138.4 billion, or and overall increase of 68% above original projections.

Some powerful voodoo, those tax rate cuts!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The growth of the welfare state in the 19th and 20th centuries really pulled the rug out from under Marx and likely ended up saving capitalism from its disagreeable tendencies.

Mike, with this one statement, you have epitomized our differences on this subject.  You see, to me, the welfare state is the “disagreeable tendency”.  Your fantasy about some form of “capitalism” with no rules or govt is not what the demand economic system is all about.  Only Marxism requires perfection to work.  The free enterprise system is designed to maximize human imperfection, and functions from the microeconomic level, rather than the macroeconomic level, like command economies do, which is the secret of its success.  Govt is a cost to the individual citizen, and so should be kept to a minimum.
I notice you haven’t dealt with my statement about “Who owns the money?” That is what distinguishes “free people making free choices” from all the rest.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The free enterprise system is designed to maximize human imperfection…

Not my best work.  What I meant to say was that the free enterprise system derives its ability to produce maximum prosperity from human imperfection.  Oh, well.

Bat: Thanks for the numbers.  When the lefties can’t grasp basic principles, it’s good to throw the numbers at them.  Good going!
As I have said before, the ideal tax rate is reached when you reduce it until revenues decrease, then raise it just enough to keep up the revenue stream.  Raising it higher than that actually decreases revenue, but the lefties just don’t seem to understand that, no matter how many times it happens in real life.  They cling to their revenue projections(fantasies) instead of what happens in the real world.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Yeah, it’s amazing. That’s exactly what happens every time tax RATES are cut.

lik, by your logic if we cut tax rates to zero we would have an infinite money stream.  Sometimes taxes need to be raised and sometimes cut.  Its a complex system.

Sometimes taxes need to be raised and sometimes cut.  Its a complex system.

Gee, Hawk.  That’s a pretty profound bit of wisdom there.  And so well documented too.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Gee, Hawk.  That’s a pretty profound bit of wisdom there.  And so well documented too.

It wasn’t meant to be wise, it was just meant to point out that the idea that everytime taxes are cut money is raised is asinine.

lik, by your logic if we cut tax rates to zero we would have an infinite money stream.  Sometimes taxes need to be raised and sometimes cut.  Its a
complex system.

No Hawk, it wouldn’t be infinite, and you lie when you say that’s an outcome of anyone’s logic.  A zero tax rate would maximize the prosperity in a demand economic system, up to the point where the nation is overrun by foreign greedheads trying to steal the earnings of the citizens, due to a lack of national defense.  So, some minimal tax rate is necessary to preserve the system, but far less than is collected in this country today, which is really what most of us are saying.  Every time tax rates are cut under the present system, where tax rates are way too high, the truth is that revenues increase.  We have a very long way to go before we reach a point where govt can’t perform its legitimate(and Constitutional) functions.  The only thing that would be hurt by drastically reducing tax rates is the political class, and those they bribe with other peoples’ money.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Hawk, if you’re saying that a tax rate cut won’t always result in increased tax revenue you’re right.  It won’t, because it depends on the situation.  If taxes are at an overly confiscatory level (as they are now) tax rate cuts will increase tax revenues.  If taxes are low to the point where cutting them further really doesn’t add any additional purchasing power in the economy then revenues likely won’t come up.

This is an overly simplistic explanation, of course, as there are other factors that play into this as well...but it is the truth.  Sometimes tax rate cuts can spur increased tax revenues.

To deny this is the very height of economic illiteracy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

...(I) meant to point out that the idea that everytime taxes are cut money is raised is asinine.

Hawk,

I don’t recall that anyone had suggest that “everytime” taxes (tax rates, actually!) are cut money is raised.

But since you insisted on raising the question, perhaps you’ll point to an instance when taxes (that is, tax rates) were cut and additional federal revenues were NOT generated.

After all, if you are going to argue the point, straw man or not, wouldn’t it be fair to assume you actually know what you’re talking about?

So… when were taxes cut and tax revenue collections were not increased?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I don’t recall that anyone had suggest that “everytime” taxes (tax rates, actually!) are cut money is raised.

lik did, and that’s why my comments were aimed at him.

Strange thing about that though, in the past 100 years, taxes have been cut by presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, and each time revenues have increased over what they had been, and over what they had been projected to be before the cuts were implemented.

As I noted above, Hawk, I would be delighted if you could point to an instance when taxes were cut and tax revenues collected had NOT increased.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat I think you need to clarify that statement and say when were income taxes cut across the board and revenue hasn’t increased.

For example the first Bush tax cuts didn’t really increase revenue, but the supply side second round of cuts worked very well to get the economy roaring.  The child tax credit increase was helpful to many of us parents, but it didn’t get the economy growing.

That’s Lawrence Kudlow’s point, not mine.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

For your reading Bat,
http://www.cbpp.org/12-19-06sfp.htm

However, I never said I was universally against tax cuts.  I have also never said I was universally opposed to tax hikes.  It is situation dependant.

Larry Kudlow’s point is well taken… though short-sighted as he has acknowledged.  To fully measure the impact of any change in tax rates, especially income taxes, requires a longer term view than a mere couple of years.  Which is why the two ASA studies I cited above are so significant.  The post-tax cut revenues were measured against 10 year projections which had not accounted for the economic downturn associated with the tech bubble bursting, nor 9-11, nor the tax cuts themselves.  Which makes the comparison all the more astounding.

Still, Kudlow is far more knowledgeable an economist than I could ever pretend to be.  Between him, and Don Luskin, and Greg Mankiw, its awfully hard to go wrong.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk,

Thank you for the suggested reading material.  I’m always anxious to know what the other half is thinking.  With names like Marion Wright Edelman, Robert Reischauer, Frank Mankiewicz, Ken Apfel, and David Ferrari on the Board of Directors, I am well aware that CBPP is far more likely to endorse NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting than they are Kudlow, Cavuto, CNBC, Dow-Jones or Fox News.  Of course, if more people paid attention to the commentary and suggestions from the Right side of the aisle, there would be less and less reason for the commentary or suggestions from your side.

As for the paper you cited, I’ve seen it before, and to be honest I am summarily unimpressed with it, and with any organization that makes so loud a case against tax cuts.  Reducing taxes is primarily the method by which money is NOT confiscated, but left to be spent, saved, or invested by those who actually earned it.  Any argument against doing is this is implicitly based on the ignoble assumption that the state which taxes those people is more entitled to the fruits of their labors than they are… although those responsible are rarely honest enough to say so.

As with the first time I read this article, I’m struck by the subtly of arguing against tax cuts by making the case at the state level rather than at the national level where, as I have demonstrated, there is no cogent argument against reducing taxes.  Its exactly the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand I’ve come to expect from those on the Left who cannot make their case based on a factual, arithmetic presentation.

(Speaking of factual, I’m not at all convinced that the “facts” presented here are in fact, factual.  Numbers on revenues, jobs, and various state budgets are at odds with numbers I have seen in the past, though I’m not prepared to refute them specifically at this point.)

Two more quick points:  First, even if the numbers cited were correct, there are any number of factors at the state level that are not accounted for in this article.  Migration in and out of each state would be one such factor, as would the overall state of each state’s economy measured both statically and dynamically.

Last, and perhaps most important, is the dog that didn’t bark.  In this case, the lack of any sort of discussion of spending discipline in any of the states examined.  When a business or a family suffers an economic or financial setback of one sort or another, the person or persons in charge are forced to make tough decisions regarding priorities and the relative need for each and every dollar being spent.  Governments, at least as implied by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, are, and ought to be, immune from such considerations.  There is no hint that government should cut back its spending in times of economic slowdown, much less that any money spent by government might be redundant, unnecessary, wasteful, imprudent, or hopelessly mismanaged.  This sort of arrogance is at the very heart of every single liberal policy argument.  And as documented here at SA over the past one hundred plus days since the Democrats took over on Capitol Hill, it is the same presumptuous drivel that drives their agenda today at the national level.

So thanks again for the referral.  But there is nothing in the article that would convince me to re-examine my fervent endorsement of tax cuts, and nothing to suggest that those who wrote and published it have taxpayers’ best interests, rather than those of “government,” at heart in the first place.  Thanks, but no thanks!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

the question of the NSA surveillance program’s constitutionality is hardly a settled issue.

its not a formally settled issue Bat. maligning the constitution through BS claims of vagueness from the powers currently in place is something to be resisted NO MATTER WHAT.

I don’t want to hear any griping from you when