TPS

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

Sheesh. There's a pot calling a kettle black...

Green eggs and ham? Really?

for rejecting the extension of the Patriot Act. Who will prevent unauthorized signs now?!? No signs!

If it's published by a conservative/libertarian think tank, it has to be true, right? CATO for pay.

Yes, it really disappoints me that he can't catch passes ten yards over his head or the ones that bounce first. What a bust.

Hmmm...so that's why my intern can't work late next Wednesday....

Of course it was...

Housing Bubble Let's see, I beleive the right says it was the Tech bubble that fueled the 1990s, not Clinton's policies; so would you say the same about the housing bubble? Or is the housing bubble, and "half the growth since 2001", a consequence of Bush's supply-side policies? "The slump in the bonds is one of the first signs the housing boom is ending after the Federal Reserve's 12 interest- rate increases. Real estate has accounted for about half the economy's growth since 2001, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. "

I don't think we were supporting parties, rather we were discussing the predicited outcomes of personal tax cuts on the federal budget. I was explaining the impact that a keynesian would predict, and GG was predicting the impact from the supply-side perspective. Keynesians: personal tax cuts stimulate the economy by increasing household consumption and increased deficits. I argued (and provided evidence) the actual deficits were a function of the decrease in TOTAL revenues and increased spending. Supply-side (interpreting the arguments made here): while personal tax cuts increase spending, they have spillover effects on many different areas (markets, profits, etc), thus increasing total tax revenues, and (eventually?) lowering deficits. No evidence was given. As for your contention that politicians use economic theories to their own benefit, I couldn't agree more. Hooray for your team!!!!

Too late Bob. And boy, does she have some interesting uses for tinsel....

No, but my intern does...

To cover up for... FBI incompetence

I have to disagree with you again. There's a significant difference between the US and EU that you either ignore or are not aware of--the EU countries, as part of their membership requirements, have a "cap" of 3% of GDP on deficit spending. They indeed are constrained by Trichet and the ECB. There is no equivalent constraint on US government borrowing. The US can borrow as long as there are willing lenders. The FED's role is to set the borrowing rate, specifically the Fed Funds rate. The Fed can affect the Treasury's borrowing cost, but it can't prevent the US Treasury from borrowing. Here's a nice little article on the problems with trying to maintain the deficit caps in the EU and individual countries wanting more flexibility with their deficit financing. EU and deficits I don't know why you would make that statement about a Keynesian--"antithetical to your makeup"? One of the most significant contributions Keynes made in the General Theory was to show that Savings and Investment are not equated by interest rates. He stated that savings was primarily a function of income, and Investment was primarily a function of profit expectations--or what he called the "animal spirits of the entrepreneur." Certainly long run growth is a function of supply factors--the ability to produce more output, but throughout th Business Cycle, Investment is a function of profit expectations. But once again, expectations of making a profit lead to investment in capital expenditures, and its capital expenditures that create growth. Since you have a very different definition of fiscal policy, maybe you can define your notion of "capital formation" for me? Maybe that's another source of our disagreement, a definition? No disagreement there. Finally, since it's the most important game of the year today, GO UCLA!!!

* You either have a selective memory, or yours is as bad as mine. I actually argued back then for a cut in the payroll tax instead of what Bush was proposing. I said it would be better to make sure those who needed the income the most got the cuts. I was against his cuts that favored the top 5-10%. Are there archives that go that far back? If so, you'll find these exact comments. * And I guess I have to repeat my same statement over and over--I presented the data in post 51. What the data show is that the deficits were a function of BOTH falling TOTAL revenues (not just personal tax reveneus) AND increasing expenditures. How many times do I have to say it before you realize I said it? *Agghhh!!!! I said it in the last two posts at least! A cut in taxes increased disposable income for households, which increases consumption. The major components that helped us out of the recession were C+G. I guess the problem relates to your failed memory: I was against Bush's tax cuts that favored the wealthy; I argued for a tax cut, specificlly a cut in the payroll tax, to stimulate the economy. Had Bush focused the tax cuts on those with lower incomes, the cuts would've had an even greater effect. * Yes, according to that article, it states the majority of economists still believe the economy will muddle along and not double dip--isn't the majority "the consensus?" * Ahhh, now this rings a bell. I think Bush was making his tax cut argument before 9-11, and the recession was actually very mild, and we may have already been recovering. I remember arguing that instead of cutting taxes, if we continued to pay off the debt, that would lead to a future tax cut because you would eliminate the $300 billion + interest expense. However, I also made the above argument on cutting payroll taxes, assuming Bush would cut taxes. * What's baffling me is why you are the only person in the country that defines fiscal policy as some form of monetary policy. Try googling "fiscal policy" * We actually agree here! * What good is "capital formation" if it doesn't translate into expenditure on capital equipment? Growth is a function of real factors--productivity and labor force growth, not some amorphous concept. * Let me see if I can interpret that: I said I agreed with von hayek about large government limiting individual liberties. So if i apply the same standard to private enterprise, that means large corporations also lead to limiting individual liberties. YES, I would agree to that.