Friday OT
Tensions rise in Israel as a gunman kills 8 at a seminary.
A bomb in Iraq kills 68 .
Ron Paul hints at dropping out .
Job cuts are the highest in 5 years.
Happy Friday everyone.
Submitted by Specter on Fri, 2008-03-07 09:09
Tags:
Comments :
IN other news......
the credit problem in the markets does not seem to be going away.
This is a direct result of Alan Greenspan's easing the interest rate into oblivion and allowing an irrationally exuberant housing bubble to inflate GDP instead of raising taxes to support a war.
Greenspan's rationale for his actions was he didn't want too much money in the hands of centralized government.
It is also a direct result of allowing lenders to go unregulated, and financial engineers to play games with consolidating credit.
The likely result will be extremely unpleasant inflation, an insolvency in the credit markets, and a strong recession/depression in the US and around the globe.
Thanks Alan Greenspan. At least you kept the regulators at bay while allowing the US economy to tank, and didn't allow too much money to be centralized in the hands of the US govt. As the rest of us pay the price for this stupidity, with outrageous prices for things we use on a daily basis, like bread and gas.
The Feds just created a hundred million in air to save Wall Street from tanking. Or how to postpone the agony, and create further inflation and an even weaker dollar.
I'm only half stupid
Bush Admin continuing to write Status of Force treaty w/o
having it approved by the Senate.
Here's Digby's link,
although I've seen it at several blogs this week.
The Administration line is that they are able to do it without sending it through Congress for approval because it "isn't a treaty", it's a Status of Force agreement. Then they trot out the agreements made with Germany & Japan after WWII & Korea after the Korean War. The only problem with those examples....They were all ratified by Congress.
Teh Stupid!!!! It Hurts!!!!
(update)-Crooks & Liars goes into more detail here:
"The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein."
Guess that whole Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution had a bush43 signing statement attatched to it as well. What other parts of our Constitution has this Administration taken a sharpie to?
The AUMF, huh?
Clearly, once again, it's ALL HILLARY'S FAULT!!!
*Ahem* Sorry, couldn't help myself.
On the main topic... stunning that the Bush administration would overreach its authority. I'm sure Dems will do what is necessary to ensure proper procedure is followed... oh wait, no I'm not.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think that the Bush Admin should be negotiating a treaty.
But they should be doing it as a treaty in conjunction with Congress.
Warrants? We don't need no stinking warrants!
Yet another source comes forward saying the Feds (the FBI this time) have direct access to every call, every speck of data about you, every fax, every e-mail that goes through their lines
.
Since bush43 asked the telcom companies to give them this unfettered access back in the spring of 2001, how is it that the reason this is OK (by some folks) now is because of 9/11 (which if you hadn't done the math was 6 months later)?
Sell out my hard fought liberties, freedoms and Constitutional Protections for additional security????Why sure some say. To which I ask how much did that help you out on 9/11 there? Not much. Maybe if the Administration had paid attention to their own Security briefings (like maybe the August 2001 PDF
) we may not have ever have had 9/11 happen.
Since I know everyone was desperately waiting
for the answers to the questions posed in my Tuesday primary results thread, I thought I'd let you know it's been updated
now that the data are pretty much all in.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What the hell
is going on in Texas with the counting of the caucus? It's been three days now and the counting seems stuck at 41% which is only a one percent increase over Wednesday's tally.
CNN had it as a headline story for a few days, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. I think the tally is significant because it may show that Obama won Texas if not tied Hillary.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Maybe they hired the Florida election board to do it...
Don't be surprised when they announce the results and they say that George W Bush won....
In other slow news
Apparently they just finished certifying the California count
on Tuesday, resulting in an 8 delegate swing for Obama compared to the estimated results.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Texas Caucus.....
Precinct chairs have 3 days to mail the completed caucus packets & forms... once election officials receive them, they've got to be checked vs. the primary records, voter id's verified, etc. I imagine the whole process is going to take weeks.
Speaking of which, Tuesday night was crazy. In my town, we stood outside waiting for the voters in line to finish voting... which didn't happen until nearly 10pm. Then it was determined that there were so many people waiting to caucus that it'd violate the fire code if they let us in the building. We organized ourselves into precincts outside. Then it was determined that there weren't enough forms to go around... so some election official had to go make copies. My precinct (one of 9 that used this caucus location) started with about 140 people (I'm guessing), but by the time we actually got in the building there were 93 who signed the caucus sheets to vote for a candidate. Then there were only 25 of us who stuck around for the full affair (voting for chair & secretary, choosing county delegates, and voting for resolutions to send to the county level), and only 8 of us who agreed to go on to the county convention as delegates (even though we have 16 county delegate slots). I didn't get home 'til nearly 1 a.m.
Mind you, in a normal Democratic primary this whole process would usually take about an hour. It was nuts.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Wow
It's great to see such enthusiasm but it sure puts a lot of pressure on the system when turnout is so much higher than normal.
Thanks for the firsthand report!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama could end this whole thing right now
First, I think it is inevitable that Obama will win the nomination.
And I think that deep down Hillary realizes that.
And the longer this thing drags out the less likely it is that there will be an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. While there are advantages to Obama being veep (he would be the heir apparent eight years from now), it doesn't really make sense for Hillary to be veep.
But Hillary might be persuaded to drop out of the race if she was offered another job -- one of substance.
Like secretary of state. She'd be a pretty good one too. And it's a job where being married to Bill would be an enormous asset.
What the heck. Lincoln's Cabinet is a list of his political opponents. If it's good enough for Lincoln ...
qui tacet consentire
I agree.....
Clinton would make a fantastic Secretary of State.
I would have a new found admiration for Clinton, if she would stop this knife fight, and do just what you suggest.
The current prevailing winds suggest that she will accept nothing less than the Presidency and apparently stop at nothing to get there.
In my opinion, the longer this goes on with Clinton punching Obama, while claiming that she is the victim, she is doing herself and the more broadly the party a lot of damage.
I'm only half stupid
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation
paints a damning portrait of Condoleezza Rice.
Emails from the National Security Council’s counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats” before 9/11, Shenon writes. Some examples:
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)
But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.”
9/11 Commission historian Warren Bass uncovered a smoking gun email from Clarke to Rice written on September 4, 2001, which asked, “Are we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat?,”
The former weapons inspector in Iraq — David Kay — passed word to the 9/11 Commission that he believed Rice was the “worst national security adviser” in the history of the job.
Talking down the economy? How liberal.
And yet the unemployment rate continued to decline by 0.1% to 4.8% in February which equates to about 195,000 less people unemployed.
Go figure, see table A on page 2
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Gimme a break
Even Fox Business News
recognizes that the unemployment rate dropped due to people giving up looking for work and so not being counted as part of the labor force.
The Hartford Courant
adds:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And we know these people are discouraged how?
What basis do we have for making this characterization? None. They might just as easily be stay at home parents for all we know.
The facts are the facts. The current unemployment rate as it has been traditionally defined and tracked is 4.8% which is a drop of 0.1% from January. Period.
You can't just cherry pick when these stats apply and when they don't to suit your purposes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How does it make
any sense whatsoever that jobs losses are highest in five years and unemployment rates go down?
The unemployment numbers have been fudged for some time now. LIkely they are higher than estimated.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out at the very least people are jittery about the economy.
I'm only half stupid
We do know
From the Labor Department's actual report
:
The 6.8% statistic was not just made up. The numbers are available. These are not all "discouraged" workers, but they are unemployed workers who have been looking for a job.
Oh come on. That's totally what stats are for! :P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It wasn't the number but the characterization ...
I was not complaining that the 6.8% number was made up, I was complaining about the assumption that all of those additional people were "discouraged". This is something that we have no idea about.
And of course this is NOT how the "unemployment rate" is normally calculated, correct? Using the customary method of calculating this statistic the rate is 4.8%, correct?
If we want to redefine how it is calculated then we have to go back to ALL of Clinton's numbers and beyond and they will all be increased for the very same reasons.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually, we know that, too
This is all a part of the stats as well. In fact, most of those 1.6 million are not considered discouraged ("only" 396,000 fall into that category). Check out the link from my first comment if you feel so inclined. Down near the bottom are links to access historical data, all the way back to 1947. Quite a wealth of information. It even makes nice graphs for you. Most of what I looked at seemed to indicate that the numbers were either improving or holding steady during the Clinton administration, and getting worse during the Bush administration. But you might be able to find some opposite trends if you twist the stats enough!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You DO know where my data came from, right?
Ditto. I just used the PDF version of the same report. :)
From the same site I gathered the following data on annual unemployment rates:
Interesting, eh? And note the current trend as of February is down which will just continue to help his average. :)
(Yea, yea, I know. Clinton suffered because of Bush41 and helped Bush43, but that's the way the cookie crumbles!)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Only you
...could look at the 2.9% drop in unemployment during the Clinton years, and the 0.1% drop during the Bush years, and tease out the stat that makes Bush look comparably effective!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL. It's a gift! :) n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's a random thought for you liberals ...
since you are widely regarded as the tax and spend types I would assume that your goal is to maximize revenues coming into the treasury.
It occurs to me that with a progressive tax system such as ours this goal is best accomplished by shifting income from the lower income groups to the higher ones since their effective rates are higher. Every dollar of income that goes to someone who pays no taxes is wasted from a tax collection perspective, right? Better to send that dollar to the highest income group available with the highest tax rate available so that you can collect at least some of it as revenue into the treasury to pay for your pet projects.
Is this an evil conservative thought or a liberal tax and spend thought?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is there anyway we can just go with
common sense, as opposed to conservatives vs liberals.
A reasonable mixed economy works best.
So far supply side economics hasn't worked out that well under conservative, 'I never met a tax cut I didn't fall in love' with, guidance.
I'm only half stupid
Right!
Because in a consumer driven economy, you certainly don't want low-end consumers to have money to spend! Heck no! You want to make sure you move all that money up the food chain, where it can really go to work... in the Cayman Islands, or building factories in China and stuff.
Because we all know that when it comes to economic policy, the only thing that makes sense is to create an environment that allows us to squeeze every dime out of the golden goose that we can, as quickly as we can. Right?
Actually the best economic system would be for one person to have all the money. It's much more efficient.... you wouldn't need all that government bureacracy any more.... no IRS, etc. I mean, there would only be one tax return to deal with, and only one tax bracket. And while we're at it, we should probably just make that person King and/or Queen... then we could get rid of all the wasteful government that wastes all the money on wasteful stuff, and get back to the good old days of economic prosperity (for whoever has all the money) and fairness.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Tax and spend types?
Are they better or worse than the borrow-and-spend Republicans?
qui tacet consentire
They are worse.
Fiscally speaking, the government should borrow as much as it can in today's dollars then institute policies which result in hyper-inflation. That way they can effectively pay off the debt for pennies on (today's) dollar using tomorrow's watered down funds! :)
(I'm not really serious, but where is the flaw in the logic?)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's much more responsible to let your grandkids pay your debt.
I mean, when compared to the last barbarian Democratic President who actually paid DOWN the National Debt and left office with a net surplus (that dolt Clinton! What was he thinking?) here we have a reasoned, civilized successor who brilliantly gave the already wealthy huge tax cuts so the common man could actually shoulder the tax load.
Not only that! But this amazing course of action actually drove up the National Debt by almost $4 Trillion, almost doubling it! And then he and his supporters get the added bonus of blaming it all on the party that held no power during his term, the Democrats.
He deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics.
You might want to check your koolaid ...
Surplus? SURPLUS? I keep hearing you liberals talking about Clinton leaving with a surplus. Let's check:
Monthly Statement of the Public Debt and Downloadable Files
So, on December 31, 2000 when Bill Clinton was still in office we see the national debt at $5.7 trillion. On January 31, 2001 just after George Bush took office we see the national debt at $5.7 trillion. So where's this surplus you guys keep talking about? I just don't see it. I guess it was just an illusion.
And as I discuss here in the post, Even more unsurprisingly ..., even WITH his tax cuts for the rich George Bush was able to extract twice as much from the uber rich as Bill Clinton and INCREASED their share of the tax burden beyond anything Clinton had achieved. Are these what you term "the common man"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4ummmmm
doesn't that just mean a bunch of people have given up looking for jobs?
Obama crawfishing on Iraq?
Samantha Power strikes again:
Link
qui tacet consentire
crawfishing.......?
Iraq has crawfish...... who knew!!
It seems like the only sensible and safe way to get out, slowly and carefully and in consultation with the generals. I don't think anyone is interested in seeing Iraq collapse.
How would Hillary crawfish it.
I'm only half stupid
Crawfishing
It's a Louisiana political term. Crawfish back up when threatened.
A politician who backs away from a position is said to crawfish.
Obama sells himself as the anti-war candidate but his foreign policy guru runs around telling the BBC his withdrawal plan is only good under the best-case scenario.
We all know how often best-case scenarios happen.
qui tacet consentire
Bush vetoes bill outlawing CIA waterboarding
story
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
He's only making the world safe to torture again,
And who can blame the guy? Look at top tier of humanity he joins with:
Adolf Hitler
The Spanish Inquisition
Mao Tse Tung
Josef Stalin
Pol Pot
The Taliban
Al Queada
How can George W Bush not join with his brethren and resist the urge not to torture? He can't.
I say he deserves the Nobel Prize for Humanitarianism on this one. just look at the group he's bringing together around him!
ps - I should add Jonah Goldberg to that list, but you have to read his book, and believe me, that IS torture!
Speaker Nancy Pelosi tells Presidential wannabe's to STFU!
Pelosi asks Clinton, Obama to quit bickering
Nancy said in a speech yesterday:
"We are all very passionate about our politics and the issues we believe in, but we have to be very dispassionate about how we approach winning. We have to lift the debate to a place that does not turn off the American people."
Maybe it's a nice Italian American grandmother who should be running for President. I gotta hand it to her. She's right.