Pangloss

My response to the old "but he used to be an ally of the west" argument has always been very simple: "So what?" Sometimes it's a matter of not knowing they're evil until later on. Other times (as with Saddam) it's more a matter of expedience -- using the tools that are available. It's not like we're alone in this. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an arab saying. It's a sick world out there. It wants to KILL you. Yes YOU. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I just wanted to point out that Senate candidate Betty Castor is opposed to Amendment 1. I'm actually leaning towards voting for her, because Martinez (whom I voted for in the primary over Peter Deutsch) came off as slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun in the debates. I was waiting for him to say "you can have civil unions when you can pry my Bible from my cold, dead fingers". Wow. He really came across as a moderate just a few months ago, and I was all ready to vote for the guy. He totally blew it. So now I gotta vote for Betty Castor, who's opposed to Amendment 1 because she doesn't feel there's enough of a guarantee in there that judges will be able to overrule notification in appropriate cases. Which is just a ridiculous cop-out, IMO.

Hi Diedra, welcome to the forums.

Yah that's an important point, and actually I think that if left unchecked it will rise a lot more than that. This is something that's way under-appreciated about the deficit. People just assume that it's a one-shot deal. Just because we spent $477 billion "too much" in 2004 doesn't mean we have to spend $477 billion "too much" next year, right? But the government doesn't work that way. The money went to pay for programs that will be right back at the till with their hand out again next year! It's exactly the same problem you had last year, only it's WORSE, because (a) inflation is actually a HUGE problem when you're talking about $2 trillion being inflated, and (b) the extra debt you accumulated from the deficit last year also has to be serviced, so in order to pay for the same services you paid for with a $477 deficit last year, you have to actually pay more. It's just plain NASTY. And of course every dollar of that goes right into the debt. The folks at Centrists.org have an interesting analysis showing the debt (not the deficit) approaching 50% of GDP by 2010 and 100% of GDP by 2025. That, of course, is assuming that the GDP continues to grow at the present rate, which is the greatest rate of any western nation (so is that realistic?). That's how fast the debt is growing. It's no joke. This article is worth reading: http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/05/29_budget_baseline.html

Interestingly convoluted. I like the way you think -- devious and insightful. But it won't play in Peoria either. (Understand, I'm not pushing a pro-Bush agenda here. I'm commenting on what I believe the story is.)

Something tells me that's not how it'll play in Peoria. The dynamic here is "Osama said WHAT? Yeah ok, I know how to vote now."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6663896 This is hitting at just the right moment to catch the Friday evening news cycle. Normally this is the "take out the trash" news day, but Jennings, Rather and Brokaw will all be on the air tonight (they don't always "do" Fridays). I predict this will sharply spike Bush's poll numbers over the weekend polls, which are typically conducted on Friday night and Saturday. It could be just enough to nudge Ohio and New Jersey, both of which have been moving to the right specifically because of security issues, over the edge. Nothing helps an incumbant like a murderous terrorist telling you what you've done wrong.

Yeah that's become all the rage these days, to split that hair as finely as possible in debate (in terms of which number is more "valid"). I don't see much point to that, really, but I agree that it's interesting, and perhaps valuable in terms of economic analysis.

Interesting.... I had not put those two factors together. Excellent observation.

I think the real tell-tale here is the total number of subscribers repretented by those endorsements. What's that, maybe 1-2% of the population? It just goes to show how few people read the paper anymore.

I don't know how accurate the number is, but the concept doesn't surprise me at all.

Sounds like the deficit has been upgraded slightly from 422 to 477. Which is definitely interesting. Thanks for the link.

Well no, a number of major-city papers endorse Bush, but it's not really important. The fact that The Economist endorsed Kerry is hardly news, folks. They've been tacitly (and not so tacitly) endorsing Kerry for a year now.

No. Canada. They killed Kenny!

I blame Canada.

(sigh) No. It's not. US GDP is in the neighborhood of $10-11 *trillion*. $477 billion would be something like 4.77 percent of that. Here's some good, basic info on GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Well we're not supposed to be Keynsian anymore, but for the most part I agree with this point. I wouldn't characterize it that way, but certainly deficit spending is nothing new. The surplus was gone before he took office. Well... I somewhat agree. I'm totally opposed to the polarizing politicization of the deficit issue. Both sides are to blame and both sides are going to have to compromise to fix it. But it IS an important problem and it DOES need to be fixed before it gets out of hand. I think it will be something historians will debate for some time, in terms of whether or not the tax cut was a major part of the recovery. I believe it played a role, and many economists agree. But the tax cut turns out to roughly equal the deficit, as it turns out, and one simply cannot help but wonder what might have happened if we had not had the tax cut. Most economists agree that we would have had a recovery, and that it would not have been as dramatic as this one has been. This is why politics needs to be removed from economics (and why it never will be). Without the tax cut Bush doesn't get re-elected, because he's looking at 2% growth instead of 4-6%, and no American president has ever been re-elected at under 3% growth (for comparison, his dad had 2, and Clinton hovered around 5-6). Since this kind of thinking absolutely rules political planning, it's inconceivable that Bush sees the tax cut as a bad thing -- it got him re-elected (if that in fact happens). That means he'd do it again. And so would any other politician who observed this (as they all have). On both sides of the aisle. And so we're right back at Square One. Deficit spending doesn't happen to save the economy (the ONLY time that's EVER happened is under Reagan, and that was to fix *inflation*), it happens for political reasons. And that's bad. Period.

Actually I believe the US budget is almost two *trillion* dollars, Sayonara. It's really quite astonishing what this country manages to spend money on. (chuckle) The deficit came in at about $422 billion. (The 700 figure was an early estimate, which has been downgraded several times.)

Hey look what I found! It's the Terry McAuliffe version of budullewraagh's chart!

Smart man. I'm not sure the benefits really warranted extending, but if you're going to give a tax break, it seems like a logical thing to do. Isn't temporary assistance the whole point of welfare? Wasn't that the whole point of "welfare to work"? Have Republicans forgotten the biggest success of the "Contract with America"?

First it was hundreds of tons. Then the Iraqi provos decided it was 140 tons (somebody obviously woke up and remembered they were a puppet regime). Now the UN says it was THREE tons (god knows why). But even if it were 5,000 tons, it would still be nothing more than a partisan talking point brought up at the 11th hour for purely political reasons. This horse is so dead ONLY an ideologue would beat it. Watch who beats it over the next few days, on BOTH sides, in the campaign, on the Internet, and even here. Those are the people you want to run from. Fast.

If your point is that the non-"battleground" states are presently being ignored, that's an easy thing for the other 40 states to fix. All they have to do is open their minds a bit and stop being so ideological. Like I said in Post #2 above, I'm still going back and forth on this. But the idea that battleground states are fought over not because they're more populous, but because they're undecided, is a PLUS, not a minus.

hahaha

So?

Ok fair enough, in terms of your motivations, but I still think you're tilting at windmills about this Unocal thing. Isn't it possible that they benefitted AND that Afghanistan needed to be taken down?