TPS

From the bit on Triplett from BB.com: "Levy said Tripplett will serve the role as a penetrating tackle, and the team will use a bulkier player to play alongside him."

I think the point he was trying to make is that a could part of the conservative base no longer supports this administration, which has significant implications for the midterm elections.

As I recall, we could've had DE Darren Howard with that pick. He's had a very solid career so far.

Yes, I should've added, "and they've completely bungled it."

I guess where I see them different is their belief in using a unilateralist foreign policy and the muscle of an unchallenged super power to pursue their strategic global objectives. Otherwise, dem=rep and rep=dem when it comes to using government as a redistributive mechanism to reward cronies.

the only point I disagree with: this administration is different.

Bungling Bush Presidency He's done such an excellent job; how could the media do this to him?

I wonder if this puts Oakland in the mix for Ngata now?

Where was the press in his first 4 1/2 years? Where were the attacking liberal democrats? Do you seriously believe he's been a good president or this has been an outstanding administration? Or is it just a witch hunt?

Geesh! Thank you Hillary Clinton. Bush is going down because it's a conspiracy of the liberals and media....good one! If only we could all think for ourselves....

Ahhh!!!! My dream combination come true!! Let's get ready to ruuuuummmmmmmbbbbllllllllllllleee!!!!!!!!! The Samoan Strangle in the middle baby! Ngata and Sape! It's the Samoan War Dance on every play--take no prisoners!!! I can't wait.

Thanks. That certainly clears up how I contradicted myself....

This administration has been the most secretive and vindictive in history. Political hacks and yesmen have been put in postions of power everywhere--you don't get in unless you pass the GOP Litmus test. I know we went over this, and your argument is that it's really about "resistance to change," but I have a hard time believing (agreeing with) someone who tries to appear objective, but everything posted just happens to support the administration. With respect to "going outside the system," of the cases noted which one(s) "create bigger problems, and why?" What specifically came out publicly that Al Queda doesn't already know or thought about? That we're data mining US residents whether we think they are involved in terrorism or not (like anti-war groups)? What's to prevent Bush/Cheney/Rove from "accidentally" eaves dropping for political advantages? I'm sorry my sarcasm is hard to suppress, but seriously, convince me on this one: how, specifically, have these particular whistle blowers created bigger problems? Thanks. By the way, if I don't respond, it's because I'm leaving shortly for the long weekend.

That's what the FISA court does. It gives the ok to do domestic wire tapping on suspected terrorists. From what I've read, the AD group was restricted and focused on external suspects.

Maybe you should do a little search on Able Danger; you'll find there is a difference between listening in on US residents and listening in on suspected foreign nationals outside the US....

How do you know they weren't using FISA?

1.The guys from "Able Danger" prevented from passing along info to FBI about Atta. 2. Someone saying it was Sr. officers NOT the rank and file who were guilty at Abu Grhaib. 3. NSA pursuing unconstitutional spying. 4. Altered terrorism documents in Florida. Yea, it's just internal issues... Yea, that's all it is, disgruntled workers protecting themselves... These aren't partisan issues. These people are trying to point out some very serious shortcomings in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, unconstitutional acts by the NSA, and acts that go to the very core of what the US represents. Maybe you righties trivialize this because it implies incompetent and illegal activities under this administration's watch. I don't care who is to blame, but I do care that FBI and counter-terrorism agents are being prevented from doing their jobs by higher ups. I do care that the administration is trying to circumvent the constitution. I do care that treating prisoners like we have at AG and Gitmo makes us no different than the terrorists. One of these days the lemmings are going to wake up and wonder what happened to their freedoms, because they have (not all, fortunately there are some conservatives who stick to their values) allowed this administration to do anything it pleases in the name of fighting terrorism. Now, let the boys go back to the playground...

Whistle blowers

Let's see we tax it at the level of consumption because it creates negative externalities (smog, global warming, etc.), but we subsidize its production. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, unless of course Haliburton benefits somehow...

Where'd the cheerleaders go?

I was going to ask if you were serious with this question, but then read through the other thread... Why do you focus on one month's data when the tax cuts were made starting in 2001? Did the administration predict that the most significant impact from its tax cuts would occur in January 2006? I could play the "Bush Bad" line with the kind of logic you're using. Fourth quarter GDP for 2005 was 1.1%. Does that mean the economy sucks? I wouldn't be stupid enough to say it does based upon one data point.... In fact, the CBO's prediction for this year's deficit is about $320 billion (although the White House predicts it to be $400 billion so at the end of the fiscal year they can claim it was much better than expected). So yes, spending increases and tax cuts lead to deficits....err...except in January 2006 (and a few other months that traditionally generate surpluses because of quarterly tax payments).

You've stated things like "the stock market indicates the success" and brought up the term "capital formation" but you've never concretely provided data that tax cuts have lead to faster growth, higher tax revenues, and lower deficits--take your pick on any of those, and please provide some evidence--and please provide some measure of your favorite form of evidence--capital formation. Now that we're 4-5 years out from the initial tax cuts, surely you could provide something concrete? For example, what was the level of the DOW and NASDAQ when Bush started compared to now? Or, has the rate of growth since his first tax cut been higher than the historical average? I noticed no one was shouting about last quarter's estimate.... Can you at least please demonstrate concretely that there's been greater "capital formation" under Bush and Reagan than under Clinton? More than likely I'll have to respond to some other vague concepts without measure, or figure out that your definition of some traditional concept like "fiscal policy" doesn't conform to the rest of the world's....

Your memory is bad. I've argued for cutting government and tax cuts for those who need them most. Recall, I favored a cut in payroll taxes instead of what Bush had proposed in 2001. Most of my arguments with you and others is about the claim of Supply-side economics. The defenses that you and every other Kool-aid drinker use are 1) some vague notion that's impossible to measure; or 2) as JSP just did, a statement like, "you must be dumb if you don't believe it." And of course, because 99% of the economics profession--the right, center, and left--also don't believe it, it's because we're biased. No one has ever presented evidence here to back the justification that tax cuts lead to greater tax revenues (and again, the true measure is real tax revenues which is measured in relation to GDP. JSP: First, SS stood for Supply-side, not social security. And everyone knows its a problem. Second, I love you too man....

And I forgot you're an idiot. If you paid attention you'd realize that I've constantly stated the need to cut government. One of the main differences I have with you, as I recall, I'm for cutting waste in every aspect of government--defense, security, and social programs. You believe it's ok that the Pentagon can't figure out where $1 trillion went; I don't. Homeland security is one huge bureaucratic mess. If they can't get a natural disaster right, imagine how bad they'll be when AQ manages to pull off a WMD here? As far as Supply-side goes, I've disputed their claims here for about the past 10 years. The data do not support the theory--and it is only a theory. If there is an impact on growth from cutting marginal tax rates, the impact itself is only marginal--that is, the growth impact is not significant enough to generate greater tax revenues to offset the original cut, so you end up with deficits, even "in time." That's why the largest deficits in history have occured when supply-side has been tried--under Reagan and Bush2. And those deficits were/are a consequence of both sides of the equation: inability to control spending AND decreased revenues as a share of GDP. The reason non-economists "believe" the SS religion is because you're told nominal tax revenues increased--nominal tax revenues (almost) always increase because nominal GDP is increasing. Does that mean I'm against tax cuts? NO. The original point of this post was that Bush's budget is again spouting the SS religion. They claim it's fiscally responsible, and that the deficit will be halved; it won't. And I'll bet on it.