finknottle

Barney Frank is one of the biggest problems in Congress. He is not just wrong, he is dangerously wrong, and being put in charge to the solutions. Unfortunately, in this political climate we have a huge uphill battle in trying to convince the public of this. Posters like 'The Senator' only sully what should be a serious argument with their infantile obsessions.

Given a choice between starting up an operation with all unknown local employees and being able to seed it with some known employees from the 'head office' at a one-time cost of 10k per employee, I would jump at the chance of ensuring that there are some employees in place that are attuned to the way the company likes to do business. As it is, a company frequently need to direct a manager to relocate, and an involuntary relocation costs more like 100k. So a handfull of 10's on top of that is nothing, and well worth the advantages.

As opposed to what - advisors who paid for their positions with political support? Are you only now discovering how politics works? The Ambassador is the *pointman.* That's not the same as the decider, which happens elsewhere, but it is a critical role. The last thing you want is for a country to think it can get Obama on the phone, or the SecState, or the SecDef, whenever it doesn't like what it hears from the Ambassador. All business goes through him, all direct negotiations go through him, and he is definately the 'return address.' It's really no different than being a customer rep for a company. It is important that you remain the face of the company, and that customers not think they can call up the CEO every time they don't like what you are quoting them.

Not true. Why would the cost be prohibitive? They said they would pay local wages. So the only extra costs are moving expenses, which is a pretty cheap one-time expense for getting a guy in place who you know can perform. And slave wages are relative. Are you saying that no New Yorker would ever leave the city and work for slave wages in Virginia, NC, or Texas? And what about the 90's, when Americans began flocking to places like Prague? If you think they were making American salaries - or even Irish, for that matter - yopu are sorely mistaken. Pretty dumb post, frankly, and it's becoming hard to tell if you are doing it intentionally. Are you trying to imitate ieatcrayonz?

This is a People Magazine view of how diplomacy works. Clinton is first and foremost visiting our Embassies for internal discussions. Her calls on the countries is intended to be a signal that East Asia is important to us - nothing more. I will bet my last dollar that she will not be engaging in any kind of negotiations. The relationship with China is run out of the embassy in Beijing, period, and so on. When China wants something, they talk to the Ambassador, not SecState. The Secretary of State is *not* an Ambassador.

The SecState *does* have work to do that goes far beyond visits and speeches. Her tour of East Asia is as much about visiting the embassies as it is visiting the countries. SecState is a management position, responsible for the smooth running of the embassies abroad, the bureau's here, and the ad hoc diplomatic missions. Indeed, visits for anything but courtesy calls generally do more harm than good, as they diminish the authority of the proper pointman, the Ambassador. It's kind of like a CEO - the last thing you want is for them to insert themselves into contract negotiations with other companies and making market-roiling speeches. Her time right now should be being spent getting briefings on what the issues and politics are with each of the pieces of DOS so that she can keep the cats herded. This is not the kneee-jerk defense of Clinton it may appear - she will thrive or suck as fate dictates. It is merely to point out that if she is doing her job, she *should* have a low profile right now. By way of comparison, I suggest you look at the first year of Colin Powell's tenure. His was pretty quiet, and he rarely traveled. Most of the rhetoric on foreign policy was coming out of Bolton and elsewhere in the Administration.

Is this really any different than generations of Buffalonians and others fleeing the bleak economic future of the decaying big government states?

Somebody woke up with his panties in a bunch! Unlike Biden, she actually has some work to do running a Department. I'm guessing she is getting administrative briefings 24/7 until she heads off on her trip to East Asia.

I would suggest it is language. Democrats prefer giving money to poor/low income people. Fine. Republicans *would like to see less of their money taken and used for this purpose.* Show me where money is given to the wealthy, as opposed to having less of it taken from them. Is there a wealthy dude tax credit out there that I don't know about? If you can't show me where money is given to the rich, then perhaps you ought to revise your language.

Agreed. But it's not simply a shell game. Reducing the federal workforce by contracting out positions has a real benefit in terms of the ability to draw down programs when you no longer want them, and not having to worry about retraining your workforce or paying into their pensions. It is a positive and real reform, not merely cosmetic.

And how is that different from now? What is to prevent some guy who doesn't like to from adding you the the Terrorist Watch List? These abuses you all fear - how does haveing a DNA code underlying things change them?

This is what was said when the Republicans came around and supported TARP. Everybody still happy with that one?

The Republicans will never be taken seriously as long as they continue their knee-jerk denial of the successes of the Clinton Administration. Instead of applauding a reasonably pro-growth administration which supported free trade, shrank government, limited spending, and bucked its party over welfare reform, the Pavlovian response continues to be "everything today is Clinton's fault," "it was all because of Republican opposition," etc. John Q. Public hears this and recognizes it for what it is - a steaming bowl of partisan crap. And the Republicans wind up shut out of the national dialog. Whose gonna take your warnings about todays economy seriously when they don't buy your spin on the 90's?

Care to back that up? In arguably the most powerful position, DCI, Bush kept Clinton's appointee. Bush's cabinet was the most diverse up to that point. For 15 positions he selected two african-americans, two asian-americans, four women, a hispanic and and a cuban-american. He also appointed a Democrat to the position of Secretary of Transportation.

You just don't get it. The question is why they are making a big deal about a small tax problem. You say it is because she is pro-union. I say it is because after four such nominees the Republicans taste blood in the water on this issue. It doesn't matter whether people agree with them or not. What matters is that they see a pattern among the nominees and want to use it to define the Democrats. An insightfull commentator you are not.

Here is my question about stimulus spending. Bush was ridiculed for saying that following 9/11 everybody should go out and shop to shore up the economy. What is the difference between my being told to run up 20k on my credit cards to create jobs, and the government running up 20k on my credit card to create jobs? I mean other than the fact that one way I get goods and services I want, and the other way somebody else does.

Talk about making up crap - if you really believe that if she were anti-union then nobody would be saying anything, then dream on. This is about the fourth nominee in a week with a tax issue. It's about blood in the water. It's about whether the Democratic bench thinks it is above paying taxes. A nominee can be Ronald Reagan and people are still going to go over his tax records.

That assumes that the bridges and roads are being built in response to market forces and not in a whimsical effort to drive them. Sprucing up Buffalo's metro system is not going to cause companies to locate there.

I did a quick serach and couldn't find anything. I did find that a treasury secretary during Bush I, Catalina Vásquez Villalpando, was convicted of hiding income, served four months, and owes 160k. Also that Dick Morris has a 1.5 million IRS judgement against him (and a 450k Conneticut judgement). Regardless, the issue is whether this is one mans embarrassment or an emerging pattern.

So what are the stimulative parts in your opinion, when is their impact felt, and what do they add up to?

If this were the only case nobody would care. But it is not - it is the fourth to emerge in days. Unpaid taxes going back years, then suddenly they decide to pay right before confirmation hearings. There is a pattern emerging among these nominees that is very troubling.

You can keep repeating the taking point or put up some math. What are the areas you say are pork and what is stimulative spending?

fixed.

Here's the sad thing. I have consistently defended the tax system in this country because it works. By that I mean we pay taxes, and believe that everybody else does too. 'Cheating' is limited to questionable deductions - nickle and dime stuff - and paying youir accountant to find you every legal loophole he can. Nobody thinks they can get away with flat cheating, and that's important. The system works because everybody believes everybody else is paying what they are supposed to, more or less. Now I'm not so sure.

That is about as much help to our hypothetical worker as saying tax cuts means somebody is more likely to open up a restuarant, needing staff, construction work, etc.