US Political thread

[VonDondu]

last time i checked our economy is doin pretty dam good.

Well, I just checked CNN:

GDP growth at slowest pace in four years, missing forecasts - Apr. 27, 2007

I'm sure there's some way to blame Bill Clinton for the economic slowdown. But the important thing to remember is that this type of economic performance is still pretty dam good by any measure you would use.

[fable]

Arguably no economy is doing very well when it bears a debt of $8 trillion dollars. The annual interest alone was $352 billion back in 2005. It's the worst federal debt ever wracked up in US history, and it does have a braking effect on the economy. The only question IMO is, how long before that effect overcomes steady growth, and starts a slow drift downwards? Of course, this may not happen; but the worst economic quarter in 4 years may also be the beginning. We'll just have to see. The fact that Bush wants to give yet further tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, as he has repeatedly stated this past year, is only another indication of how out of touch it is with the state of the eocnomy and the growing division between the wealthy and the middle/lower class.

[VonDondu]

A lot of people don't think the national debt and budget deficits have any effect on the economy, and while that just "sounds wrong" to me, I don't know how to argue with them. I've studied economics casually, but not even economists can agree on this particular subject.

I'm not sure if the national debt has much effect on economic growth. So far, the nation's "credit rating" has remained good enough to let the government keep on borrowing more money indefinitely, so there isn't any crisis on the horizon. Interest on the national debt, on the other hand, does have a negative effect on the federal budget--namely, we can't spend as much money as we would like to on other things because we're still trying to keep the budget deficit to a (cough, hack, cough) minimum. That might slow down the economy a little bit since less public money is being spent on... well, whatever we might have spent it on is a moot point. Bush's tax cuts have greatly reduced revenue, which of course makes the deficit larger every year, but that doesn't mean the government is spending less money. So again, we're still "priming the pump" (to use the language of bogus Reaganomics), so I don't know if the economy is being hurt by a lack of public investment. Personally, I think the biggest problem with the federal budget is that many of the things we're pouring money into, such as the Iraq war, aren't helping this country one bit. In other words, we're wasting resources, and that has to be a "bad thing". But if we weren't spending that money on the Iraq war, that doesn't mean we'd be spending it on better things; we probably wouldn't be spending the extra money on anything at all, and we'd simply have a smaller deficit. In other words, I'm not sure how much difference it would make if Halliburton and Chalabi got less money from our government, which is borrowed money that we're never going to pay back, anyway. Maybe things only look bad on paper.

Moving along to a more humorous subject (and getting back on topic), the Bush administration's so-called "AIDS czar", who has emphasized faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS, has just resigned from his position as Deputy Secretary of State amid reports that he has repeatedly patronized an escort service. Obviously, he himself is neither abstinent nor faithful to his wife. If he were a Democrat, this would be a major scandal.

[fable]

I'm not sure if the national debt has much effect on economic growth. So far, the nation's "credit rating" has remained good enough to let the government keep on borrowing more money indefinitely, so there isn't any crisis on the horizon. Interest on the national debt, on the other hand, does have a negative effect on the federal budget--namely, we can't spend as much money as we would like to on other things because we're still trying to keep the budget deficit to a (cough, hack, cough) minimum. That might slow down the economy a little bit since less public money is being spent on... well, whatever we might have spent it on is a moot point.

And that was exactly my point. I make no bones about understanding economics; and at least a few of the economists I've read admit as much, too. But for what little my opinion's worth, it seems to me that if you end up having to tax your wage earners more to pay for the interest on an ever-increasing federal debt, they have less money to spend. That's an argument that should appeal to the supply siders, who are always urging tax breaks to improve the economy. Seen in such a light, the federal debt interest functions in the exact opposite way of what they want to do. Not that what they've wanted to do has worked anywhere yet, save in making them more popular with their party financiers. A hell of a lot could be done with $8 trillion dollars over a 6 years, even if a small portion of that would no doubt have been spent on other aspects of a peacetime military.

[fable]

2. he is allowed to fire attorneys for any reason, clinton fired 96 of them

Missed this before. It appears to imply that Bush is doing as Clinton did, and this is factually incorrect. All US presidents in the 20th century at least have removed from office DoJ appointees from the preceding administration after taking office, as a method of rewarding competent lawyers at a state level. No president before Bush has ever fired DoJ attorneys for supposed "performance issues" that were not performance-related, and were demonstrated to be because they refused to follow through on an agenda to smear the opposing party. This has never been done before. Not by Clinton, not by Reagan, not by FDR, not even by Nixon.

If you check the individuals involved, you will find that Bush even fired Republican DoJ appointees, because they refused to launch investigations on false, trumped up charges against Democratic candidates who were running for office that year. In every case where their replacements did launch these investigations, they were either quietly dropped after the elections, or thrown out of court--which in itself is a commentary on the kind of game the Bush administration was playing.

With the Department of Justice, which is supposed to be completely above this kind of thing, and has never been used in this fashion before in US history.

So no, Bush is not following here in Clinton's footsteps, or Reagan's, or anybody else's. The slime trail he's dripping has no precedent, and is leading into uncharted waters. Very dangerous ones for a democracy.

[VonDondu]

No president before Bush has ever fired DoJ attorneys for supposed "performance issues" that were not performance-related, and were demonstrated to be because they refused to follow through on an agenda to smear the opposing party. This has never been done before. Not by Clinton, not by Reagan, not by FDR, not even by Nixon.

EDIT: I'd like to use this as a launching point to offer some more information about the attorney purge scandal. To add to what Fable said:

Actually, the scandal goes far beyond "smearing the opposing party". Basically, the Bush administration has an agenda to use federal agencies, personnel, and resources to keep Republicans in power. Besides channeling resources to political campaigns, which is illegal but not very surprising, and trying to control the national dialogue in various underhanded ways, their main focus has been the suppression of voter rights. They have gutted the civil rights division of the Justice Department, for example. But the key to understanding the attorney purge scandal is this: they have compelled U.S. attorneys to pursue as many "voter fraud" cases as possible with the intention of scaring away Democratic voters and hampering Democratic voter registration drives. Innocent people have been charged with crimes and thrown in jail for simple mistakes such as registering to vote twice (but not actually voting twice). Not only has this undermined democracy, it has ruined people's lives. The attorneys who did not pursue this despicable agenda to the satisfaction of the Bush administration were fired and replaced by Bush cronies who would do the job. Other functions at the Justice Department, such as the investigation of scams and other monetary fraud cases, have suffered partly as a result of this.

The Bush administration is corrupt to the core, and they have caused a lot of damage to our democracy. Not to mention that they have rendered government agencies incapable of doing the work they're supposed to perform. Bush's people have broken laws, lied to Congress, and obstructed justice. That's why this scandal deserves our attention.

[fable]

Actually, the scandal goes far beyond "smearing the opposing party". Basically, the Bush administration has an agenda to use federal agencies...

VonDondu, if you reread my post, you'll see I was dealing with one claim made by Templar67 that was inaccurate. Feel free to answer others if you wish, or make statements that stand on their own, but please, don't assume I'm politically naive about how Bush and his administration have politically polarized aspects of federal government that up until this time have remained free of party partisanship.

[VonDondu]

I'm sorry that you read my post that way, Fable. I was trying to add to what you said and bring up some points which I haven't seen in this thread already. The attorney purge scandal is still a breaking news story, and NO ONE knows all of the details yet. But to anyone who thinks that the Bush administration's actions are "politics as usual" or justifiable because "Clinton did the same thing, or even worse" (which obviously does not include you, but there are other people reading this thread), there is a lot of information to the contrary out there, and I was trying to offer some of it.

[fable]

I'm sorry that you read my post that way, Fable. I was trying to add to what you said and bring up some points which I haven't seen in this thread already. The attorney purge scandal is still a breaking news story, and NO ONE knows all of the details yet. But to anyone who thinks that the Bush administration's actions are "politics as usual" or justifiable because "Clinton did the same thing, or even worse" (which obviously does not include you, but there are other people reading this thread), there is a lot of information to the contrary out there, and I was trying to offer some of it.

I'm thinking this is as good a place as any to put factual content demonstrating just how widespread the corruption is, how badly the operation of government has been corrupted into the operation of a division of one party to perpertuate its hold on power through means that are clearly illegal. All I ask is that you not tag it on something I've just said, in a fashion that makes it appear I'm unaware of the same issues. Your command of the facts in question, however, is not an issue.

There are already plenty of hearings in progress, and quite a number of second-tier officials have either resigned or left in disgrace. The big names, though, are all the public focuses upon, so the continued presence of the likes of Rove, Rice, Cheney, etc, lead many to think everything is just fine in Bushland. It isn't, and as you point out, the extent of the damage to our system of government is truly severe. It may take decades to restore the freedoms Us citizens had, the reputation they had in at least part of the world, and the democracy they accepted without thought.

[fable]

11. Valarie plame was a nobody who worked at a desk, if she were actually an "agent" i would think differently

Another factual error. Plame testified under oath before Congress that she was a NOC (non-official cover), or covert agent. She also indicated that she was active in the field, at her testimony::

CUMMINGS: During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

PLAME: Yes I did, congressman.

You don't lie under oath before Congress and expect to get away with it, especially in such a highly charged political matter. In addition, CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow had told Robert Novak not to reveal her identity: standard procedure with a covert operative. And Michael Hayden, the Bush-appointed head of the CIA, has stated that Plame was a covert agent.

When the CIA chief says you're a covert agent, it doesn't get any more definitive than that. Templar67, given your previous statement, noted above, maybe it's time for you to start thinking differently.

[Chanak]

Helmet and Insurance Laws a Bad Thing for Motorcyclists?

I found a rather interesting article concerning 2006 motorcycle accident statistics in major Florida counties in last Sunday's Orlando Sentinel. In a nutshell, 70% of all fatal motorcycle accidents were found to be the fault of the motorcyclist. 80% of the cyclists had no insurance. 41% of the cyclists were not wearing a helmet. 25% of them did not possess a license to operate a motorcycle in the state of Florida. Since 1999 - the last year Florida had a mandatory helmet law - motorcycle registrations doubled, and fatalities tripled for the period of 1999 - 2005. Other tidbits:

* After 1999, Florida made helmets optional for riders 21 years of age and older. (does that make sense to anyone?)

* Currently, the law does not require a motorcyclist to be insured.

* Just as well, motorcycle dealers have been allowed - due to a lack of laws regarding this - to sell and release motorcycles to individuals who do not possess a license to drive one, and who have not completed a safety course related to their use and operation.

These statistics merely cover fatalities in accidents involving a motorcycle. They do not include data concerning non-fatal accidents. I can only wonder what the figures look like regarding those...and marvel that some people actually believe that helmet laws, insurance and mandatory safety course attendance is not necessary and constitutes an infringement on the "rights" of motorcycle owners to enjoy their experience. I'd say that their "right" to enjoy riding motorcycles takes a back seat to the "right" of the public and the state to not have to pay for their irresponsibility when accidents occur.

The article also quoted various investigators and law enforcement personnel stating that they couldn't exactly be sure just how much operator error was due to the rider not being able to properly handle the size of bike they were driving at the time of the accident. That is considered by some experts to be a key factor in motorcycle operator error. Some European countries require motorcyclists to demonstrate that they know how to operate a particular class of motorcycle safely before being issued permission to drive them. Naturally this makes perfect sense from a rational viewpoint, but then so do helmet laws, mandatory insurance coverage, mandatory possession of a license in order to purchase a motorcycle, etc...

Many states at least require motorcyclists - regardless of their age - to wear helmets, possess a license, and insure themselves while riding. In the case of the state of Florida at least, it's an example of the power a particular lobby - the motorcycle dealers - exercise in the legislature. Some actually have the gall to defend the status quo, pointing fingers at car drivers, unfavorable traffic conditions, and anything and everything else *but* the motorcyclist in light of the statistics I shared above.

What do you think? Are helmet and insurance laws for motorcyclists unreasonable? If so, why? I'm intensely curious.

[Fiberfar]

* After 1999, Florida made helmets optional for riders 21 years of age and older. (does that make sense to anyone?)

It's not like the damage you get from crashing a bike is less lethal when over 21 than it is when under 21.

Of course, young riders might be more inexperienced than the older ones...

[Chanak]

Of course, young riders might be more inexperienced than the older ones...

What's interesting is this: half of the fatalities were caused by riders age 45 and older.

[Fiberfar]

What's interesting is this: half of the fatalities were caused by riders age 45 and older.

Hm... Inexperience isn't the problem then.

This sounds more like an attempt to suck up to parents not wanting their children to drive bikes. After 21 they're free to do as they want.

[TEMPLAR67]

11. Valarie plame was a nobody who worked at a desk, if she were actually an "agent" i would think differently

Another factual error. Plame testified under oath before Congress that she was a NOC (non-official cover), or covert agent. She also indicated that she was active in the field, at her testimony::

CUMMINGS: During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

PLAME: Yes I did, congressman.

You don't lie under oath before Congress and expect to get away with it, especially in such a highly charged political matter. In addition, CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow had told Robert Novak not to reveal her identity: standard procedure with a covert operative. And Michael Hayden, the Bush-appointed head of the CIA, has stated that Plame was a covert agent.

When the CIA chief says you're a covert agent, it doesn't get any more definitive than that. Templar67, given your previous statement, noted above, maybe it's time for you to start thinking differently.

I dont think i need to start thinking different at all.Power Line: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent?
Just because she testified to that dosent mean that it was true.

[fable]

I dont think i need to start thinking different at all.Power Line: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent?
Just because she testified to that dosent mean that it was true.

Did you read beyond my quote? The Bush-appointed Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, has also stated that she was a covert agent. People can deny reality all they want among the wingnut bloggers, but the simple fact is that 1) she stated her job before Congress, when any number of conservatives and neo-cons would have loved to catch her on lying--but didn't; 2) the man who broke the story about her was warned by a CIA agent (who later gave sworn testimony) not to give her name, because she was covert; and 3) the CIA Director said she was covert.

Denying this kind of detailed reality is common among those who have less regard for the simple truth than they do for fiction-based propaganda, but I didn't figure you for one of that crowd.

[TEMPLAR67]

I would much appriciate you to cite the info you claim so i can read it and decide for myself where the truth is.

Denying this kind of detailed reality is common among those who have less regard for the simple truth than they do for fiction-based propaganda, but I didn't figure you for one of that crowd.

And i am not, please share with me your info, perhaps i was misinformed, we have all seen what bad intelligence can lead to

[fable]

I would much appriciate you to cite the info you claim so i can read it and decide for myself where the truth is. And i am not, please share with me your info, perhaps i was misinformed, we have all seen what bad intelligence can lead to

Plame's testimony was on television. It's been repeated on the Web numerous times. Remember, she made this "claim" in front of the CIA and before Congress, with many members who would have loved to see her tarred and feathered through catching her in a lie that could so easily have been disproven. If her statement about her covert status wasn't true, she would have been flatly contradicted and brought up on charges of perjury faster than you can say "I'm the Decider." The fact that she wasn't in itself constitutes proof. But if you want to actually see it, you'll have to search for it. I'm sure clips of it are still around.

For the rest, the statements made by CIA Director Hayden and, Harlow may possibly be found online, though you may have to check through print publications (such as Time or Newsweek, or appropriate journals) to find this content, as I did. Look it up. Don't go to a wingnut blog site and search for evidence. Right, left, or somewhere else entirely, it doesn't matter, as long as they use logic instead of twisting it, and report facts, and all the facts, not just those of use to themselves. Don't start with the conclusion that accurate news reporting is automatically suspect, either, as the stranger right wingnuts and left anarchists would have you believe. Check out reputable, fact-based news and information sites and libraries. That's the basis for getting this stuff right. Not to say that we all don't make mistakes from time to time, but there are fewer chances to do so when you go to sources and use reason.

[VonDondu]

Denying this kind of detailed reality is common among those who have less regard for the simple truth than they do for fiction-based propaganda, but I didn't figure you for one of that crowd.

Um, he indicated that he got his "information" (sic) from Power Line, which is about as far removed from reality as you can get without disappearing into another dimension.

[TEMPLAR67]

Um, he indicated that he got his "information" (sic) from Power Line, which is about as far removed from reality as you can get without disappearing into another dimension.

I have never been to that site before, i just happened upon it in a google search, i dont know anything about them. I watch Fox News, mostly O'Rilley and Hannity & Colmes. Oh, and Glenn Beck