Bush changes strategy -- will call for independent counsel on WMD-----

No, it's simply not the shades of grey issue you make it out to be.

It's black and white.

Supply side economics is dogsh-t. Plain and simple. I cited guys like Friedman, Greenspan, and Krugman to make a point: that people across the political spectrum think that the magic of deficits is fantasy. It's not the political thing you make it out to be for most economists.

PS, how does a paper with an abstract like this that you cited:

Summary: This paper develops a dynamic computable general equilibrium model in which optimizing agents evade taxes by operating in the underground economy. The cost to firms of evading taxes is that they find themselves subject to credit rationing from banks. Our model simulations show that in the absence of budgetary flexibility to adjust expenditures, raising tax rates too high drives firms into the underground economy, thereby reducing the tax base. Aggregate investment in the economy is lowered because of credit rationing. Taxes that are too low eliminate the underground economy, but result in unsustainable budget and trade deficits. Thus, the optimal rate of taxation, from a macroeconomic point of view, may lead to some underground activity.

support supply side economics? Supply side economics as practiced by Reagan and Bush II never met a deficit it didn't like.

I'm sure if you cruised around the internet, you could find websites that allege that the Moon landing was fake.

That doesn't mean that they are not wrong.

BTW, you did make it into a class issue, when you implied that the primary critiques of it were based on those things, i.e., you either intentionally or subconsciously painted it as bleeding heart liberals vs. big mean conservatives. That's not the case...at all, or else Alan Greenspan is a bleeding heart liberal

It's junk science vs. real science. Guess which one is junk.

You might want to check your verb tenses there bro. I said "anymore"

The links you cited are from publications from nearly a decade ago: 1996, and what looks to be the early 90's. The empirical data from the late 90's is one of hte primary reasons we have why we now know Supply side theory is junk, so necessarily anything from before then is not valuable as an indicator of presently accepted views.

 

111chase111. If your only point is that some people on the left or right are too extreme, or we shouldn't assume that the opposition is evil, that is a truism and I would have agreed with you.

Your first post was not that neutral and was certainly not as devoid of support for Bush as you are now making out.

As an aside I believe that there are some rightists in the Bush Administration, or very close to those who are, who take relatively evil positions or actions. I would cite those who deliberately deceive the American people. Is this also a grey issue with you? What if these people sincerely believe the goals they are trying to achieve through their deliberate deceptions are worthwhile?

There was a crowd in and about the Administration who in the year leading up to the Iraq War actively decieved about the threat of Sadam posed. They did this because if they told the truth about the actual threat, they were afraid that the American people would not have supported the war, these folks had been pushing for years. (the new American Century crowd.)

I also include the Grover Norquist ."starve the beast" type crowd who want to eliminate social security and nearly all social spending, but know the American people don't support this, so they are deliberately trying to sabotage the budget to make these programs impossible.

Though I think there are rightists in the Bush Administration who deliberately push the deceptions above to the American people, I do believe that the bulk of the American people who quote these deceptions sincerely believe in them. I would cite someone like Jorge, who probably sincerely believes in supply side economics, given his relatively conservative, MBA type exposure to economic theory.


Sam Fisher hits it right. You seem to be trying to unnecessarily make such questions as to whether Bush deliberately slanted the evidence on wmd or knew his tax cuts benefitted the wealthy, grey issues.

 

or an envelope of ricin. apparently the WH got one the other day too...is that "imminent" enough?

 

Wow. How did Saddam manage to mail those envelopes from his cell?

 

LOL, so that's where saddam was keeping his WMD's, in the Dierksen building. Or maybe that's what he used his one phone call for.


This is stupid even for you.

 

snail mail...

 

VERY snail!

 

111chase111, thanks for trying to fight the good fight.

glynch and sam, you guys are perfectly capable of reading comprehension, please get it in your heads that the number one issue for 111chase111 here is partisanship itself. Just that. Stop bashing and rehashing the issues he brought up merely as examples and missing his point.

A biased mind is a closed mind, less capable of good judgement. The extreme polarization of politics is bad for this country. Voters and politicians are less and less able to judge any issue or action on it's own merits, without being influenced by who did it and what party they're with. It's sad and the country is worse off for it.

 

Thanks a lot, Nolen.

 

If all you got is partisanship bad.

Why not go to the hangout board?

It has practically banned partisanship.

I do agree that a biased closed mind like Bush had with respect to Iraq and the threat is posed leads to less ability to make good judgements. As a result we had a very bad judgement call by Bush.

This close mindedness and partisanship by Bush should be a good reason for neutral guys like yourself to vote him out of office.

 

interesting development on fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110372,00.html
--
Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

WASHINGTON — A 7-pound block of cyanide salt (search) was discovered by U.S. troops in Baghdad at the end of January, officials confirmed to Fox News.

The potentially lethal compound was located in what was believed to be the safe house of Abu Musab Zarqawi (search), a poisons specialist described by some U.S. intelligence officials as having been a key link between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda (search) terror network.

Cyanides salts are extremely toxic. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory, exposure to even a small amount through contact or inhalation can cause immediate death.

Zarqawi, believed to have been operating in Iraq before March's invasion, was still being sought by coalition forces. It was not clear if anyone had been apprehended in connection with last month's find.

Early last year, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (search) detailed Zarqawi's significance in an appearance before the U.N. Security Council.

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.

Zarqawi was described as a poisons expert with strong ties to the former Iraqi regime and the terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. A Palestinian born in Jordan who fought in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan in 2000 to oversee terrorist training camps, Powell told the Security Council.

"One of his specialties at the camp was poisons," Powell said. "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosives training center."

Zarqawi is believed to have begun establishing terror cells in and around Baghdad prior to the start of the war last March, and is thought by U.S. officials to still be in the country.

U.S. officials, who said they were getting new intelligence in the hunt for Zarqawi, also believe he had been attempting to produce large quantities of the toxin ricin in northern Iraq.

 

They've cried wolf so many times now, I'll have to wait and see before I fall for this.

 

YOu apparently aren't that good at reading comprehension either.

For the third freaking time, it is not a matter of partisanship.

Why do you think I brought up right wing economists like Friedman and Greenspan and a more left leaning one like Krugman by way of example? I brought it up to show you that supply side economics is a mix of quackery and intellecutal dishonesty, which, I think everybody can agree, is not good, or at least should not be given the same level of credence as legitimate research should.

It's no more valid than to say that the sun revolves around the earth is just a simple partisan issue. It's not.

Why can't you guys see this? laziness?

 

Is that the same one in the north that has repeatedly threatened to overthrow Saddam (called him an infidel, etc.)? I seriously don't know.

 

he had ties to answar al islam, but i haven't heard of any threats he made to saddam.