TPS

I completley agree. I was going to post this yesterday. According to Adams, their role is to tie up blockers. So why not have that big Mf pushing into the O-line? Big mike tyingup 2 blockers. he doesnt' have to be tough, he just has to disrupt the O-line and force them to blcok him with two O-linemen.

Next you'll tell us that Mike W will be practicing at DT. Playoffs, ha hah hah...

Fouck off !@#$! Does that get me below 1000?

Can't separate out quotes on my apple,so here goes; 1. I completely agree: i thought it was a monty skit: I said exactly what you said, and i couldnt believe you misinterpreted it. So you agree, it's obvious, tax revenues will decline next year. I brought Greenspan into this because he said exactly what I've been saying about the dollar. I tought it was obvious. I didn't think it was that difficult to see? You bring in a quote from how long ago? I quoted AG to support my ideas on the dollar. Sorry, next time I'll make it easier to understand...

couple of quick responses--kind of busy today: Revenues next year will be less than this year's (windfall), even if the rate stays the same. mickey's reference didn't look "hinted." Looked pretty clear to me, so I thought you were referring to one of my posts. Idle chatter like the following..... Greenspan's idle chatter For those who don't have a WSJ subscription, a blurb from Mr. Greenspan: "Mr. Greenspan suggested that constraints on financing of the U.S. trade deficit are likely to come from "foreign investors' fears" of holding too large a share of their investment portfolios in U.S. stocks and bonds. He suggested that this change could already be under way. He noted that of the more than $30 trillion in foreign investment tracked by the Bank for International Settlements in the first three months of 2005, 42.5% were in dollars and 39.3% were in euros. The dollar's share was down by 4 percentage points from around three years earlier, while the euro's share was up by 5 percentage points, Mr. Greenspan said."

CHB By the way, while your at the site, check the link to FAQ, specifically the second-to-last question.

Apparently I have to be simple with you.... Any economist, left or right, will tell you the long run growth potential is a function of the gowth in productivity plus the growth in the labor force. For the US, that sum has averaged around 3% since WWII (that is an average; it doesn't imply the same value every year). Given that market economies are subject to business cycles, GDP "cycles" around that trend. Greenspan thought that there was a "shift in the trend gowth of productivity" in the 1990s, which is why he did not put the brakes on when UP fell below 5% in 1997.

Are you saying that dot-com companies would not have been created without the cut in K-gains? The tech bubble needed no fuel. The creation of the internet was one of those significant moments in economic history that helps create and sustain growth for significant periods, not unlike the auto in the 1960s or mass production of consumer goods in the 1920s. Speculative bubbles are fuelel by irrational expectations of continued price increases, not tax cuts. i assume you mean the first couple of years under Bush? If so, that's what I said, expansionary fiscal policy--i.e. large deficits, prevented a worse outcome. If you know of any articles off hand, let me know. Otherwise I'll try and do a search for this debate. Hey, I'm willing to admit when something works--I'm not a complete demagogue.. Yes, if the tax stays at 10% permanently, revenues will decline, but not completely to the previous level. It should be obvious that the significant increase this year represents years of accumulated profits, not just the past year's profits. there you go again, your paranoia, "a hinted reference?" Can't you righties read? You probably won't recall, but I did state that when the economy initially turned on Bush in his first year, it was the natural outcome of the business cycle, and I did not blame him. Once again, I expect that after his 8 years are up, GDP will have averaged about 3%/year. No hinted reference there. i guess we're looking at two different animals: On-budget deficits were over $500 billion in 2003 and 2004, thanks to the SS revenues, the total deficit was $417 bil in 2004 (I'll focus on total instead of on-budget so we're consistent). Ok I'll play your little game. The correct change to look at is from Clinton's last year. There was a budget surplus of $236 billion in 2000. The deficit in 2004 was $412 billion. That's almost a change of $650 billion! And it represents a 6% change as a percent of GDP. The deficit is not out of whack only if you're a republican. Deficits under Reagan averaged 4.2% of GDP, Bush1 averaged 4%; under Carter deficits averaged 2.4%, and 0.8% under Clinton. So yes, BushII's deficits that are currently 3-3.5% of GDP are all right for a republican--those paragons of fiscal responsibility. Or could it be that tax cuts do after all cause deficits? Gee, you got me again. I didn't realize that "nugget" was related to the supply-side argument that tax cuts reduce deficits.... By the way, how long do you thinkl interest rates will stay low? My guess is until China decides to float its currency....

Yes, some things never change--you not comprehending my post... Did you miss the part where I said GDP has grown at about the same rate for every president regardless of the policies enacted? Growth under Clinton averaged 3.3%; for Bush it's currently 2.7%, but as I said the more recent hgher growth should bring his average about to the historical 3%. Yes, raise taxes and GDP still grows at 3%; Cut taxes and GDP still grows at 3%--the only difference between the two is the structural budget change.

Individual income tax revenues as a % of GDP went up every year under clinton, beginning with 7.7% in 1993. His tax increase generated MORE revenue every year. The cut in K-gains AND the tech boom caused the increase to over 10%. The point I was trying to make is that Bush's tax cuts caused the individual revenues to decline, not increase. Note to the right: this is an argument against the S-S argument, not in support of Clinton. Creating an extreme one-year exemption is hardly a testimonial to S-S theory. If that's their argument, that you can increase revenues in one-year by implementing a radical change, then I'm in your camp. On the other hand, i will make a friendly wager with you that corporate taxes will be significantly lower next year. There you go again, Bush is better than Clinton. I'll say it again, the historical trend growth rate in GDP since the end of WWII is about 3%. Every administration since then has averaged close to that. I even said Bush might end up there. You want to make it a Bush good, Clinton bad argument; fine. However, if you are going to try and make bush sound better by saying he's done well despite blah, blah, blah, then include the fact that he had to run $500 billion deficits to keep the economy from sinking. Good sound Keynesian fiscal policy if you ask me... Those deficits were a consequence of the tax cuts and slower growth. Now that growth has resumed its long run path, we still have $300 billion dollar deficits because of the tax cuts--tax cuts change the structural deficit. Yes, I suppose you think it's sound fiscal policy to cut taxes and borrow to pay for your Iraq war.

Hmmm...good old supply-side policy is finally working? What took so long? In 2000 individual taxes as a % of GDP were 10.3%, that fell to a low of 7% in 2004. Projections for 2005 at about 7.5%. Nominal GDP increaesed by 7% over the past year, with inflation (GDP deflator) up by 4%. This also caused a tax increase on hundreds of thousands of families because they had to pay the AMT. The big move in revenues over the year came from corporate income taxes--42% increase over last year. Much of that is attributed to the one-time reduction in taxes on foreign earnings this year (from 35% to 5.25%). Estimates of repatriation of profits range from $500 billion to $900 bil. Real GDP growth over Bush's 5 years (assuming this year comes in about 4%) has averaged 2.7%, compared to a 3.3% average under Clinton. So far, real GDP is running below historical standards for Bush. As long as the economy continues to grow throughout his remaining term, it'll probably end up about the same as it has for every other president--close to 3%. So, either every president has had equally successful policies, or maybe the economy tends to grow over time at about the same rate, and the real impact from polices is on how that 3% got distributed among the population? As Reagan's budget director David Stockman said, the real idea behind S-S economics was justification to shift income toward their base...

10,000

Seems some people are now questioning the UK's evidence as well. Could it be same strategy that Cheney used with Judy Miller--Feed her false or trumped information for an article, then go on the Sunday talk shows and quote the articles from the NYTimes....? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...ticle325155.ece

Nope, not saying that. In the case of Plame, it could be a criminal offense to leak her name; in the case of the gulags, the leak concerns a "policy" that breaks international law (Geneva Convention). Maybe some of those people at the CIA have a conscience...

You're comparing apples and oranges. In the case of Plame, senior administration officials leaked her name to the press to discredit her husband; in the current case, apparently senior CIA officials leaked the "gulag story" because of their disagreement with the policy--which was also established by the Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal." The right wants to make this a liberal media/democrats vs. Bush story, but it's not. At least two years ago I speculated that there was a "spy vs. spy" conflict between the Cheney-Rumsfeld Pentagon and the CIA over disagreements about US foreign policy and the war on terror, specifically the need to invade Iraq. This continues to play out today in the form of leaks and criticism from former national security personnel, especially now that Bush's man Goss is trying to purge the CIA of elements that do not support the beliefs of the neocons. Like Wilkerson said, Cheney's cabal has hijacked US foreign policy, and there are a lot of long time foriegn policy/security personnel who are opposed to their plans. I think they see a good chance to sink the ship with the Libby indictment, so they'll continue to "leak" information that further damages the neocons.

apparently I'm not alone is thinking the leak came from within... "Senior intelligence sources blamed the leak on CIA officers unhappy at having to maintain what one former counter-terrorism official described as “secret gulags”. " CIA leaks

from the article is sounds like you've nailed it. Many of the sources are "former intelligence officers." In addition, it states that there is a debate within the CIA about the usefulness of this policy. Could it be another attempt to discredit what GG called the "cabal in the White House?" "The black site program was approved by a small circle of White House and Justice Department lawyers and officials, according to several former and current U.S. government and intelligence officials." In a recent interview, Powell's former aide Wilkerson (who also said "US foreign policy was hijacked by a cabal in the White House) suggests the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib goes back to the Veep's office as well.... Wilerkson The way that Goss is politicizing the CIA now, it would not surprise me that those liberal CIA folk are behind the leaks...

I thought the main point made was that it's muslim fanaticals causing the riots, which is part of a larger conspiracy to take over the western world.... Seems to me it parallels something like Rodney King and LA riots--as the article I read said it was sparked by two teens being electrocuted while fleeing police. riots

as i said, the article I read didn't mention anything about religious background; it mentioned "poor neighborhoods," and Africans frustrated with not finding jobs.

Is there a link? I figured I could find something on Drudge given the initial post, but the article I read this morning didn't say anything about muslims. Boy, I sure am afraid now that I've read the posts here about the insidious invasion of those muslims into western cultures....

I think the criticism is more about when they elect to throw. I get the feeling that Clements doesn't have faith in the run game in crucial situations. Rarely did the Bills run two consecutive plays in a row--their last drive was one of the few exceptions I can recall. Given their play call mix, I don't think their play-fake is very effective. I'm also a big fan of the draw play, and I don't think they use it nearly enough as well. Between Clements and Gilbride, I almost miss Joe Pendry....

Wait second, you mean GG can use the term and I can't?!? (see the "It keeps getting better" thread--specifically post 6.)

Yes, your typical summary. The one point that you are correct on: "intall an idiot as a puppet president."

That's a lame response. I believe what's really gone on is that the WH cabal was trying to circumvent the CIA to push for the Iraq invasion. Ever since, there has been a battle between the Pentagon, under the cabal, and the CIA, the longstanding bureaucrats of security. In my opinion, the CIA has been instrumental in trying to bring down the Cheney cabal, because they believe these guys are nuts--with respect to their foreign policy.

yes, I always lose you when the words are 3 or more syllables... Seriously, read that piece. I don't know who the guy is other than it says he's a former DIa analyst. however, it's a good chronology of the hacks that took over American foreign policy.