TPS

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.

Yes, they proved that tax cuts do lead to deficits. I've gone over the supply-side hoax too many times already... I do agree with one thing: in time, tax revenues will increase whether you cut, raise, or keep them constant.

Yes, I'm well aware of the multiplier effect. The real question is: if you cut taxes by $1,000, will that generate an increase in income large enough to generate an increase in tax revenue more than the $1,000 cut?

My pov comes from reading the same thing coming from too many departments. There's a Wall STreet Journal article today that touches on the subject as a whole. Some political hack at NASA was trying to muzzle scientist there as well. Here's the intro to the WSJ article: "WASHINGTON -- A dispute involving a researcher at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is fueling a debate over whether analysts throughout the government are being muzzled to prevent criticism of Bush administration policies. Louis Fisher, a 36-year veteran of the agency and an expert on the separation of powers, said his superiors wrongly punished him for giving interviews and publishing scholarly articles under his own name that contained criticism of the White House. Top officials deny those allegations, saying they were simply trying to protect the agency's reputation for nonpartisanship and objectivity."

Oh boy, is this one of those "all government workers are incompetent" posts? So you're in favor of hiring political sycophants instead?

Actually, the original point was a little more elliptic: the Bush budget while claiming to be fiscally responsible, is not. Spending increases, offset by spending decreases, then throw in tax cuts. Same old deficit song. And when the next president is forced to clean up the mess created by Bush and the republican congress, the cacophony will begin...

Sorry, I was responding to the post that said they hadn't seen "cuts in spending" only a slowdown in the growth of spending. Guess I didn't the quote button.

You obviously don't get the point since you're stuck in the lemming mode: cronysim goes on all the time in "politically appointed" positions, and yes on both sides. However, for civil service hires, especially in the area of WMD, don't you want the most highly qualified person? Don't you want someone who is not afraid to have a counter argument to the Neocons? Sorry GoB, but I think this is more than a "change of policy." It's making sure that everyone is on board with one policy. That is NOT good at the STate department. Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing.

"The 2007 Budget builds on this success in reining in spending. Like last year, the 2007 Budget holds overall discretionary spending growth below the rate of inflation and again proposes a cut in non-security discretionary spending. The 2007 Budget also proposes major savings in or eliminations of 141 Federal programs, saving nearly $15 billion. " From our main propaganda unit: The White House

Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good.

Republicans are so fiscally responsible. Ok, I'm gonna cut non-defense, non-homeland security expenditures, but I'm going to increase defense and homeland security expenditures, and exclude the cost of Iraq and AFghanistan from my budget numbers, and cut more taxes, but my budget is fiscally sound. I guess they know the lemmings won't vote against them.... At least they were smart enough to leave out the long term budget projections, because the numbers aren't pretty. Sheesh!

Lauvale Sape There's a good reason Samoans still practice their "War Dance" ....

It's not hearings about a hurricane, it's about the response. And people ought to be concerned when the head of FEMA, in the midst of the crisis, was more concerned about his dinner reservation than the flooding of the city.

Getting out of control So if Bush declares that there's a perpetual "War on Terror" he can assert executive privilege about FEMA's response to Katrina? Where does it stop? Is this what conservatives want in the executive branch?

Here's another perspective: democrats? Like many arguments here, it depends on what you mean by the word "is".... I do find it interesting, after a quick perusal of the subjects on the first two pages here, that the first post about Abramoff is the tried and true--and most common argument here, "the dems did it too" or "the dems are worse." Abramoff is closely tied to the republican leadership and the White House. This is truly a republican scandal. That said, I don't trust either party. I think the dems play the money game too; it's just that the republicans have taken it up quite a few notches. K Street

Defends Chavez from what?

Wanted to get an idea of the drafts the Bears' had under Jauron. Difficult to make overall judgements, but focusing on his top 3 picks in each year (1999-2003): 2 QBs (McNown and Grossman) 4 OL 2 WR 1 RB 2 DL 3 DB 1 LB I didn't take the time to find out what happened to a lot of these guys (injuries, etc), but I'd say his drafts look above average (top 1/3?). First two years look like good foundation building, then the 3rd year he went for some Prime time players (Terrell and Thomas). He's had a couple of good late round picks (4-7), but not a lot--Colvin, Azumah, and Brown. Maybe someone with more time can do a more in depth analysis. Bears' draft history

I'd don't care who is in power; I'm against more power to the executive--I prefer not to live in a police state. The problem has NOT been intelligence agencies "lack the tools" to fight AQ; the problem has been the ineptness of the bureaucratic intelligence structure. And what did Bush do? He created the largest bureaucratic structure of all--Homeland Security. In five separate cases before 911, FBI agents investigating AQ had their hands tied from above (DC). The Patriot Act can't prevent that.

Isn't AQ (and OBL) always on the run? Somehow it doesn't seem to prevent him from overcoming the most sophisticated secruity network in the world though. Hmmm....maybe we should just hire AQ? They're obviously more intelligent than our intelligence... And, no, this doesn't make we want to hand over to the executive the power to wire tap under any and all circumstances. Might as well live under Stalinist Russia.

I saw him briefly on the NFL network this morning (although it was probably yesterday's show) giving some kind of press conference related to their game, and he came off very confident and articulate. He makes a good first impression.

Ngata has declared for the draft. I saw a little bit of him in their bowl game. He was double-teamed on just about every play. He looks like a Ted Washington-type player.

Along that same line, I think Wade deserves another shot as well.

Ron Paul