Alright, that's it, I'm in, just for this, I'm in. BASEL II? You're citing as a symptom of the decline of American Republic Basel II? I dare say I know more about Basel II than anyone else on this board. Basel II, while a gigantic pain in the ass for virtually every bank in the world, is NOT a bad thing. It's at WORST equivalent to Sarbanes-Oxley, and that's stretching it.

Why on earth would you want to elect someone to come up with Basel II or similar types of docs. Not everything can be elected, it takes too long, and frankly, not enough people, especially those interested in political science have any clue what they're doing when it comes to financial markets, so let the grownups talk and sit in the corner of the room.

kimbatiste wrote:TP-

I usually find you well reasoned and always a well informed conservative. But your continued hatred of Clinton is over the top. How can you say that corruption of this Presidency pales compared to that of Clinton's? Not only are we losing men and women by the truck load but we are paying extortionist prices to Bush crony corporations to rebuild Iraq. We have a government that unabashedly turns the Department of Justice into a big thank you card (at least Clinton usually restricted it to nights in the Lincoln bedroom).

But honestly, I understand thinking Clinton was a scumbag, I understand being fundamentally in favor of tax cuts instead of increases and I understand, though feel it is misguided, a more hawkish approach to national defense. That being said, why do Republicans always feel the need to attack the principles and methods of the Clinton administration but not the results.

I once did hate Clinton, but I don't now. He had successes. Most notably, NAFTA and welfare reform, where he teamed up with the GOP and fought his own party.

The economy was great during his presidency, but that is coincidence, not cause and effect.

The much celebrated balanced budget, for which both Bubba and congressional republicans can justly claim credit, was NOT the cause of our economic success. In fact, history shows that our best economic performances follow big deficits, and in fact the 2000 recession came on the heels of Clinton's balanced budget.

When you look at the Clinton administration, even beyond the sleaze, you see imcompetence and cronyism and a level of corruption that Bush's buddies cannot broach. Now, most of that is due simply to Clinton's incompetence, not a deliberate attempt to steal from the governed.

On balance, even without the impeachment, Clinton's was a failed presidency. Not on a Nixon or a Carter level, but still a failure. The ill-considered attempt at socialized medicine, the neglect of the military, the giveaways to North Korea, the blind eye to genuine threats from the Middle East, Donna Shalala -- abject marks of failure. Don't defend him by comparing him to Bush, but to competent presidencies, like Ike, JFK, Ford, Reagan, and hell, Bush I.

TomatoPie wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:TP-

I usually find you well reasoned and always a well informed conservative. But your continued hatred of Clinton is over the top. How can you say that corruption of this Presidency pales compared to that of Clinton's? Not only are we losing men and women by the truck load but we are paying extortionist prices to Bush crony corporations to rebuild Iraq. We have a government that unabashedly turns the Department of Justice into a big thank you card (at least Clinton usually restricted it to nights in the Lincoln bedroom).

But honestly, I understand thinking Clinton was a scumbag, I understand being fundamentally in favor of tax cuts instead of increases and I understand, though feel it is misguided, a more hawkish approach to national defense. That being said, why do Republicans always feel the need to attack the principles and methods of the Clinton administration but not the results.

I once did hate Clinton, but I don't now. He had successes. Most notably, NAFTA and welfare reform, where he teamed up with the GOP and fought his own party.

The economy was great during his presidency, but that is coincidence, not cause and effect.

The much celebrated balanced budget, for which both Bubba and congressional republicans can justly claim credit, was NOT the cause of our economic success. In fact, history shows that our best economic performances follow big deficits, and in fact the 2000 recession came on the heels of Clinton's balanced budget.

When you look at the Clinton administration, even beyond the sleaze, you see imcompetence and cronyism and a level of corruption that Bush's buddies cannot broach. Now, most of that is due simply to Clinton's incompetence, not a deliberate attempt to steal from the governed.

On balance, even without the impeachment, Clinton's was a failed presidency. Not on a Nixon or a Carter level, but still a failure. The ill-considered attempt at socialized medicine, the neglect of the military, the giveaways to North Korea, the blind eye to genuine threats from the Middle East, Donna Shalala -- abject marks of failure. Don't defend him by comparing him to Bush, but to competent presidencies, like Ike, JFK, Ford, Reagan, and hell, Bush I.

I'm with you halfway through. I agree that Clinton's biggest success is where he worked with the Republican Congress but generally moderation is best and only achieved through compromise.

I also agree that very little credit or blame goes to a President for the economy. In my view, the economy is largely cyclical and the most the President can do, or should try and do, is extend a good wave or shorten a depression.

But then you get conclusory again. I know you say that Clinton was incompetent and corrupt yet I have never seen the widespread condemnation of an administration for corruption and incompetence as this one. Note this is not simply the "liberal MSM" but from a litany of Bush I and Reagan prototypes. Do you believe that their corruption is just more reported and obvious?

Certainly, Clinton had failures and I generally agree with those that you listed. But every administration, especially two term ones have failures. You mentioned JFK... failure to pass the Civil Rights Act, the Bay of Pigs debacle, certainly the same personal moral failures as Clinton. Those failures seem much more disastrous then those you listed by Clinton.

TomatoPie wrote:Dub and Dick and Karl are not Nazis, the Antichrist, nor even evil incarnate. Their governance pales next to the Clintons, to Nixon, and to LBJ in terms of corruption and misuse of power.

Today, Dub is powerless. Does that not speak to the separation of powers and checks and balances?

Relax, this is nothing. You are gonna look back and say "what was I so exercised about?" just as I now say to myself over the Clinton impeachment.

No, no, no, no, no. This is nothing like the Clinton impeachment. And it doesn't even have to do with the disastrous failures of this administration--the war, the inequality, the conscious polarization of the country, the silence and inaction on so many big problems.

TP, I like you and I respect you. But I think you simply couldn't be more wrong about the Bush Gang. I won't claim that they're a criminal enterprise... though I do think they've broken a lot of laws. But I agree with Paul Krugman that they're a "revolutionary force," who have a very different view of how our government works than anyone who came before them. It's called the unitary executive theory.

This administration claims powers no previous president has even contemplated. The incidence of "signing statements" that essentially nullify laws passed by Congress; the president doesn't have that power. The decisions to wiretap, to shrug off the Geneva Conventions, to rescind habeas rights that predate the Constitution, going back to the Magna Carta. You say they're powerless; that's not true, but it's also not the point.

They've given us the thoroughgoing politicization of government, putting partisan hacks like Lurita Doan and Bradley Scholzman and hundreds more whose names we might not ever know, all helping to make what seems to be the modern Republican philosophy--"government is incapable of serving the public, so let's use it to reward our friends and punish our enemies"--a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What's really scary to me about this, and why I think it aligns with Phan Paul's concerns, isn't so much what Bush and Dick are doing; it's what the next guy or gal could do. Rudy Giuliani is every bit the sociopath with an authoritarian streak that Dick Cheney is. Hillary Clinton isn't at that level, but she does have a big appetite for power and a sense of entitlement that's not so far from Bush's own.

They've opened the door to some terrible things. To this point, those things mostly have just happened to unlucky Muslim detainees, insufficiently partisan U.S. attorneys and other public servants, and members of a few additional groups. But it's the nature of power unchecked to keep reaching. Whether it's this Bush, or the next Clinton, or Rudy, or some charismatic nut now in a state legislature somewhere, someone will go through the door, unless we nail it shut. At that point, the country we loved probably will be gone.

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Dub and Dick and Karl are not Nazis, the Antichrist, nor even evil incarnate. Their governance pales next to the Clintons, to Nixon, and to LBJ in terms of corruption and misuse of power.

Today, Dub is powerless. Does that not speak to the separation of powers and checks and balances?

Relax, this is nothing. You are gonna look back and say "what was I so exercised about?" just as I now say to myself over the Clinton impeachment.

No, no, no, no, no. This is nothing like the Clinton impeachment. And it doesn't even have to do with the disastrous failures of this administration--the war, the inequality, the conscious polarization of the country, the silence and inaction on so many big problems.

TP, I like you and I respect you. But I think you simply couldn't be more wrong about the Bush Gang. I won't claim that they're a criminal enterprise... though I do think they've broken a lot of laws. But I agree with Paul Krugman that they're a "revolutionary force," who have a very different view of how our government works than anyone who came before them. It's called the unitary executive theory.

This administration claims powers no previous president has even contemplated. The incidence of "signing statements" that essentially nullify laws passed by Congress; the president doesn't have that power. The decisions to wiretap, to shrug off the Geneva Conventions, to rescind habeas rights that predate the Constitution, going back to the Magna Carta. You say they're powerless; that's not true, but it's also not the point.

They've given us the thoroughgoing politicization of government, putting partisan hacks like Lurita Doan and Bradley Scholzman and hundreds more whose names we might not ever know, all helping to make what seems to be the modern Republican philosophy--"government is incapable of serving the public, so let's use it to reward our friends and punish our enemies"--a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What's really scary to me about this, and why I think it aligns with Phan Paul's concerns, isn't so much what Bush and Dick are doing; it's what the next guy or gal could do. Rudy Giuliani is every bit the sociopath with an authoritarian streak that Dick Cheney is. Hillary Clinton isn't at that level, but she does have a big appetite for power and a sense of entitlement that's not so far from Bush's own.

They've opened the door to some terrible things. To this point, those things mostly have just happened to unlucky Muslim detainees, insufficiently partisan U.S. attorneys and other public servants, and members of a few additional groups. But it's the nature of power unchecked to keep reaching. Whether it's this Bush, or the next Clinton, or Rudy, or some charismatic nut now in a state legislature somewhere, someone will go through the door, unless we nail it shut. At that point, the country we loved probably will be gone.

Naturally, the admiration and respect is mutual. I still don't share your fears, and it's not out of any defense of Dub. I think the hue and cry about Dub and co is grossly overblown. That said, it serves a purpose, again in that "checks and balances" thing. There are just too many lawyers and too many bloggers for any one interest to get too far out of hand with power. And what Dick Cheney has done to suspected terrorists is a day in the park compared to what Lincoln did and to what FDR did. And we bounced back from those times pretty well and we generally regard Lincoln and FDR as among our greatest leaders.

TomatoPie wrote: I'm alarmed at the level of hyperbole coming from such a usually level-headed source. Dub and Dick and Karl are not Nazis, the Antichrist, nor even evil incarnate.

So what you're admitting now is that Bushco is mediocre even when it comes to evildoing?

if 3,000+ US soldiers & unnumbered Iraqi civilians were not dead in consequence of this tribe's dimestore iniquity, I could be good with that.

jeff2sf wrote:....frankly, not enough people, especially those interested in political science have any clue what they're doing when it comes to financial markets, so let the grownups talk and sit in the corner of the room.

sez the Master of the Universe, posting on a message board dedicated to the travails of a mediocre professional baseball team.

Just wanted to pop in to mention that I bought this book last night at Barnes and Noble. BOO YA POLITICS etc.

jeff2sf wrote:Alright, that's it, I'm in, just for this, I'm in. BASEL II? You're citing as a symptom of the decline of American Republic Basel II? I dare say I know more about Basel II than anyone else on this board. Basel II, while a gigantic pain in the ass for virtually every bank in the world, is NOT a bad thing. It's at WORST equivalent to Sarbanes-Oxley, and that's stretching it.

Why on earth would you want to elect someone to come up with Basel II or similar types of docs. Not everything can be elected, it takes too long, and frankly, not enough people, especially those interested in political science have any clue what they're doing when it comes to financial markets, so let the grownups talk and sit in the corner of the room.

Precisely. However, the lack of transparency, the fact that even the people who are drawing up Basel II aren't really certain about the effects (intended and unintended) will be, and the fact that there are losers and winners based on the specifics of the rules are all reasons why a world that needs a Basel II is a world where most major decisions will not be democratic.

I could have used just about any policy of the EU as yet another example.

Anyway, that John Adams fella doesn't get enough credit

Phan Paul wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Alright, that's it, I'm in, just for this, I'm in. BASEL II? You're citing as a symptom of the decline of American Republic Basel II? I dare say I know more about Basel II than anyone else on this board. Basel II, while a gigantic pain in the ass for virtually every bank in the world, is NOT a bad thing. It's at WORST equivalent to Sarbanes-Oxley, and that's stretching it.

Why on earth would you want to elect someone to come up with Basel II or similar types of docs. Not everything can be elected, it takes too long, and frankly, not enough people, especially those interested in political science have any clue what they're doing when it comes to financial markets, so let the grownups talk and sit in the corner of the room.

Precisely. However, the lack of transparency, the fact that even the people who are drawing up Basel II aren't really certain about the effects (intended and unintended) will be, and the fact that there are losers and winners based on the specifics of the rules are all reasons why a world that needs a Basel II is a world where most major decisions will not be democratic.

I could have used just about any policy of the EU as yet another example.

1.

2. ?

Dick Cheney, de facto President

A four part series on how Cheney has transformed the Vice President's office into the center of power in this administration.

Brief synopsis: "I have a different understanding with the president", circumventing proper channels, 9/11, eavesdropping and stoopid FISA, Cheney's tax cuts, getting around the law (the Ruskies after the space shuttle disaster), influencing a criminal probe, letting Bush think he's calling the shots, Cheney's secretive task force on energy policy, Cheney's "kitchen cabinet" on economic policy, executive supremacy, Gitmo, "we don't torture" (because we've redefined what torture is), the stoopid Geneva Conventions, etc.

Dick Cheney is in the legislative branch when it suits him, and in the executive when it suits him. He is the law!!!

pacino wrote:Dick Cheney is in the legislative branch when it suits him, and in the executive when it suits him. He is the law!!!

Jon Stewart said so, so it must be true.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:Dick Cheney is in the legislative branch when it suits him, and in the executive when it suits him. He is the law!!!

Jon Stewart said so, so it must be true.

Or it could be Cheney's actions.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:Dick Cheney is in the legislative branch when it suits him, and in the executive when it suits him. He is the law!!!

Jon Stewart said so, so it must be true.

Please tell me you aren't seriously going to defend Citizen Dick.

The guy is a menace to your Constitution as much as mine. He claims executive privilege to hide secrets, and then turns around to argue he isn't part of the executive branch and thus isn't subject to its rules. Oh, and tried to shut down the department that was pushing him to disclose.

He's a hard-to-believe conflation of the worst judgment ("last throes," torture, et al) and the worst morality of any public figure in my lifetime. At least Nixon was often right in his policy instincts.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:Dick Cheney is in the legislative branch when it suits him, and in the executive when it suits him. He is the law!!!

Jon Stewart said so, so it must be true.

did alec baldwin move to canada yet? oh wait, isn't it s'posed to melt?

Frankly, I'm just glad to live in a nation where the likelihood of having a head of state named "Gordon" is just a notch above zero.

(apologies to any and all Gordons reading this)

Warren Buffett says that the amount of taxes that the rich pay is not fair

Speaking to several hundred supporters of the U.S. Senator from New York, Buffett revealed his puzzlement that he was taxed at a lower rate than many of the lesser-paid individuals working for his company.

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.

"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.

phdave wrote:Warren Buffett says that the amount of taxes that the rich pay is not fair

Speaking to several hundred supporters of the U.S. Senator from New York, Buffett revealed his puzzlement that he was taxed at a lower rate than many of the lesser-paid individuals working for his company.

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.

"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.

He's a class traitor who doesn't realize his own importance and virtue...

Meanwhile, though I'm not generally an advocate of hate-the-rich politics, since my big objective these days is to see Hillary Clinton defeated, I hope that the more hardcore Dems to my left take note of how many corporate bigshots are lining up behind Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.