427 Comments

1. Knucklehead:

Roger,

One of these days you need to have a Drinking and Trips From Hell thread.

Glad you made it safely.

Aug 12, 2004 - 6:45 am 2. richard mcenroe:

Wussy civilians. Any flight they don’t make you jump out of or rappel down from at the end is a good flight.

As a matter of fact, Roger, the MSM has been covering the Cambodia story. They’ve been writing the articles on the same rice paper Kerry received his secret CIA orders on. Then little Pinch Sulzberger and Dan Rather ate them.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:20 am 3. PeterArgus:

Well at least the story is mentioned in WAPOO. Not a whisper in the paper of record today.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:39 am 4. jedrury:

The WaPo editorial page [apart from the columnists] on any morning is so abysmally

poor that it is a wonder anyone can read it.

With the passing of Meg Greenfield, the editorial board fell out of bed and never got up. At least with Greenfield a style and flow was evident,

now its clumsy word merchants rival Al Hunt,

Bob Novak and Mark Shields as the grammatically challenged.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:42 am 5. Percy Dovetonsils:

This thought just crossed my mind – envision the Republican Convention, when the delegates are stuck in the same room with the press. I wonder how many press members will be grabbed by their lapels – and I mean grabbed, literally – and quizzed about their overt partisanship?

We might see the first riot in which the targets aren’t the police, but the media.

It will be interesting to see how the press covers the convention, as I don’t think the delegates will hesitate in giving the MSM “feedback” of their performance over the past four years.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:53 am 6. Eric Deamer:

Roger:

I don’t know if the link from the words “Howard Stern” is supposed to go to an article about him, to Stern’s site, or to Jeff Jarvis’s site, but the link is busted now.

Anyway, I completely agree with you on the respective merits of obsessing on Cambodiagate/vs. obsessing over a shock jock getting dropped from six markets. Since you’re here, maybe you and Jarvis can have it out West Side Story style?

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:54 am 7. Knucklehead:

Richard McEnroe,

I wanted to come back at you (having flown numerous civilian flights from hell) but I realised, upon reflection, that the things which make civilian flights “hell” are things military flights often do for fun and training. Stuff like “touch and go” landings and “Oh, heck, Mike, we don’t need all this runway. Stand this thing on its tail and get us off the ground already, willya.”

The one thing the military probably doesn’t do to human beings the same way the civilian sector does is lock people up in the metal tubes commonly called airplanes for hours on end while sitting on tarmacs in full sunshine. The military would, I believe, allow the passengers to disembark and find someplace to gasp for air rathere than willfully suffocating them.

I once had an honest to goodness extrasensory experience on a commercial flight from hell. We were well into the second hour (for the second time on the flight) of suffocating on a tarmac and I was sitting there thinking to myself, no kidding, “If these bleepity bleepin bleeps don’t let me off this bleepity bleepin plane real soon I’m gonna kick out a window so I can breathe” and within a few minutes a well dressed and seemingly otherwise normal man stood up and said, aloud and with vigor, almost those precise words. The rest of the rabble quickly started seconding his motion and searching for some torches and pickhandles with which to mutiny so they hurried us to a safe spot and rolled up stair thingie.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:57 am 8. Kevin P:

Roger:

Keep up the fine job that you have done reporting this story. And keep chiding the MSM about one of the larger political head in the sand moments of the last ten years,second only to the news embargo on the oil for palaces scandal, but this is the way the media honchos are going to cover this story. The LA Times proclaimed that this story was not “FAIR GAME” from the moment this story broke. And like a priests vow of chastity they have kept their word.

As you noted the only mention of this story will receive from the national fish wraps will be about whatever dirt the resurected “Bimbo Eruption” team can dig up.They can’t discuss the details of the book because some of them are so obvious they can’t be disputed. If they actually acted like reporters they know that this would ruin the Kerry as Hero meme that they have so slavishly reported on the last year of the race. To even hint that the reprinting of the Kerry PR press releases that they have passed off as legitimate reporting on the Kerry war record would make them look so bad that they can’t risk looking like they were played as suckers for the last 12 months.So they won’t. They are doing such a good job of covering Kerry’s backside that I suggest that Kobe Bryant hire the New York Times to handle his new civil case. Keep doing what your doing but don’t hold your breath hoping that the Times will act like reporters instead of PR flacks for the Kerry campaign.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:09 am 9. J_Crater:

Let’s not get into a Bob Dole “where is the outrage” moment with WaPo. They have the priorities (all screwed up).

I couldn’t believe they did the “doctor” signiture bit, which was dispelled on the web almost a week ago. Perhaps AlGore can stop by to teach them to use the internet.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:14 am 10. Silicon valley Jim:

“The papers’ editors barely deal with the substance of the charge at all, which are DETAILED IN A FOOTNOTED BOOK, but attack a soundbite ad and slam the individuals behind it. Facts? Forget about them.”

Amen to that, Roger. There has been quite a regrettable tendency in the media and in face-to-face argument to ignore the fact that the accuracy of a statement is independent of the credibility of the speaker. As Robert Pirsig wrote, “The biggest fool in the world can say that it’s raining, but that won’t make the sun come out.” I may not have the quotation verbatim, but I have the sense. It makes no difference if the swift boat veterans have been paid by the Republican party, are jealous of John Kerry, abuse their wives, poison their neighbors’ pets, etc. The only important thing is whether their statements are true, and I believe that they are.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:17 am 11. Rick Ballard:

Well, a UPI correspondent has a piece out. Wonder if anyone will pick it up.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:24 am 12. Jamie Irons:

I wonder if the good ship Kerry may have sprung a leak, and the MSM (I know TSR isn’t quite MSM) carrier group that defends it may have made a mistake in suggesting a “full frontal” assault on the Swifties (via “Instpundit”):

Impermeable to…

Jamie Irons

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:28 am 13. blogaddict:

Well, at least it is now crystal clear where the MSM stands. They have cast their lot with Kerry, and they will not challenge him no matter how egregious the behavior, no matter how well-credentialed the challengers, no matter how important the issue–until, and unless, their hand is absolutely forced (and maybe not even then). The masks are off right now.

And I find it quite an eye-opener, also, how few of the news people, especially in the field of TV, seem to have the facts straight when they do get around to actually discussing the swift boat issue. It highlights, for me, how little homework they actually do when they prepare for a story.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:36 am 14. Beldar:

There’s more blogger commentary about the WaPo editorial at Captain’s Quarters, Patterico’s Pontifications, Thoughts Online, and my own humble rag. On balance, I think it’s a good development — another huge crack in the MSM dike.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:57 am 15. Mark in Mexico:

That’s OK, Roger, because you have given us a new target. Your secret mission to Kathmandu! Now we all know where you got your magic hat. You are obviously more clever than John Kerry because you have hidden it in plain sight for all these years…on your head.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:00 am 16. Syl:

Thanks for the link, Rick.

The author points out an alternative to bias for the reason the MSM isn’t dealing with the SBVT…

Why no media feeding frenzy? It could be the political bias of editors, but there is another angle: most senior editors are of Vietnam age.

For those too young to remember or who weren’t even born yet, the Vietnam War tore America apart. Anti-war protests by leftists and students spread across campuses and into suburbia as more and more Americans died in what seemed a futile and misguided conflict. Those in school full time were granted draft deferments; others found different ways of avoiding putting on a uniform. Many took part in anti-war protests out of conviction or as a social lark. Maybe they now don’t want to be reminded or asked questions with no comfortable answers.

I agree though I think it is only one factor. Bias is another, of course. I also they think the MSM has convinced themselves that they’re not going to deal with this because it would mean questioning a vet’s service.

They’ve forgotten they questioned Bush’s. But, that was just the ANG so it doesn’t count.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:02 am 17. Syl:

LOL, Mark!

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:03 am 18. hollywood:

Reasonable (or not so reasonable) minds differ on the biases of MSM. To wit… [well, OK, you have to get to the middle of the article, but there it is]http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=55900

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:10 am 19. DennisThePeasant:

You know, we really do have to drop the “Christmas In Cambodia” thingee now that Roger has admitted that he was in or about Buffalo when he was claiming to be in or about NYC.

Fair’s fair.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:17 am 20. hollywood:

Say what you will, Roger, about the Post, some find that it was biased in favor of the Bush admin particularly with regard to the steps toward war in Iraq. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5676702/

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:29 am 21. hollywood:

My damn computer’s got the hiccoughs!

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:30 am 22. Hovig:

Roger,

Brit Hume made an extremely important point on his Fox News show regarding the Cambodia matter the other day. Brit noted that at the time, 1968, the simple act of being in Cambodia would have constituted a crime under international law.

If I read this whole thing right, it was not merely that John Kerry was trying to make Nixon and the Vietnam war look bad, or give himself an interesting “war story,” but that he was essentially accusing himself of a war crime, which is of course consistent with his famous 1971 testimony and medal-tossing ceremony, and other statements he’s made subsequently.

This is what makes the Cambodia statement so important.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:39 am 23. Knucklehead:

Well, if the wouldbe journalists aren’t going to cover Christmas in Cambodia, at least the wouldbe paperback writers are having their turn (Mudville Gazet through Instapundit)

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001152.html

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:43 am 24. doublecola:

Go ahead and shell me, but I think the Washington Post editorial was right on target. I think the ad is dishonest. I know, coming from me, no big surprise!

Now, that said, the WP was only responding to the ad. Which is, obviously, separate from the book.

What will be interesting to see is that once the book is officially released, what the outcry will be. Will there be enough outcry over Cambodia, that the WP will have to address that issue? Or will they be satisfied with his “new” statement regarding his adventures in Cambodia? Or, will the public care at all?

But I think the Post was right to go after the ad, the book, to me (with the Cambodia controversy) is a completely different issue.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:02 am 25. TmjUtah:

I’ve posted before that the media faced a tough choice with this election and I think that they have officially passed the point of no return. They are intent on ignoring anything that can hurt Kerry. If the same flavor of allegations (forget the proof) had been made regarding Bush’s service, CNN would have a logo for the story and it would be above the fold on the NYT.

Kerry doesn’t need a bimbo squad. He’s got the editorial boards of just about every newspaper, magazine, and network actively aiding and abetting him. They aren’t even pretending otherwise anymore. I guess we’ll find out if the media really is worth fifteen points; they seem to think they are. My money is still on Bush with 54% or better, though.

If the Democrats do get crushed, it just means a few dozen top-tier apartchiks have to get lobbying jobs. If Bush negates the thrust of every editorial and supposed-news story written on him for the last couple of years via decisive victory how many newsies will hit the bricks and how many stockholders will suffer? The market will stand a lot of foolishness but there has to be a limit somewhere, right?

I’ve had some hairy SWA flights, including one short landing in Dallas on a windshear but nothing that came close in either violence or duration to a terrain avoidance/insertion exercise by C-130 onto a dry lake at 29 Palms, California. We knew we were about to land when the crew chief shouted “O.K., has everybody barfed yet?”.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:02 am 26. wxjames:

Roger, welcome to the east coast. In your honor, we will be entertaining 2 hurricanes this weekend. There will be no extra charge for the extra hurricane. If you need water, please send your container in a stamped, self addressed envelope to Anywhere, New Jersey.

The press = 15 points ? I believe that. Therefore, given an even handed press, Bush should win 66% to Kerry’s 30% to Nader’s 4%. I think that’s about right. Ask any Kerry suporter and they will quote the press, thus: Bush lied. There are NO WMDs. We shouldn’t be in Iraq. Cheney is giving Halliburton contracts and should be investigated. Bla bla bla bla blah.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:17 am 27. Barry Dauphin:

From WaPo

“But a new assault on Mr. Kerry — in an ad by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and in a new book — crosses the line in branding Mr. Kerry a coward and a liar.”

WaPo is talking about the ad and the book.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:23 am 28. DCThunder:

You should have heard Don Imus and guest Mike Barnicle this morning defending Kerry simply because “he’s a good man” and “the other boats were 100 yards away, so how could they have seen anything”.

Barnicle’s been in the tank for Kerry for years and Imus drops further down every day. Sometimes, I don’t know how Charles puts up with it.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:28 am 29. doublecola:

The New Republic has interesting advice for Kerry–not good–but interesting

here

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=baer081104

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:32 am 30. ter0:

The only way Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could get less attention would be to go on “Air America” radio.

Link

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:36 am 31. doublecola:

“WaPo is talking about the ad and the book.”

Yes, you’re correct, but the content of the article seems to only address the statements in the ad.

As I said, it will be interesting to see if Cambodia plays with the public or not. It would also be interesting to see a poll on how many folks even know about the Cambodia issue.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:36 am 32. Rick Ballard:

Barry,

Yeah, they are. They also quite carefully did not say a word about Kerry’s excellent Cambodian adventure. Not a word. I don’t think they felt comfortable in printing the lame campaign response, so they hid the ball. For a moment.

BTW – has anyone heard of a single one of Kerry’s “band of brothers” say a word about going into Cambodia? What kind of brothers are they? Surely a few of them should be standing up and shouting, “Listen, I saw Secret Agent No-Name hand his beret to Lt. Kerry as he leapt onto the riverbank in Cambodia. Pow.”

Second BTW – Amazon still has ‘Unfit for Command’ at #1 this morning. My order confirmation says it’s not going to ship until 8/25. What’s with that? Did Regnery drop the ball or are there a few more bombshells in the book that will detonate right after the convention?

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:39 am 33. Knucklehead:

The Command Post does a reasonably thorough job (much more thorough than Kerry’s team has done) of listing out “what we know” vs. “what is plausible” wrt Christmas in Cambodia (and the I flew an Israeli fighter into Egypt assertion that I had never heard of before).

Interestingly enough one of his commenters lays out a rather convincing case that there was essentially no way, no how, that Kerry took a SWIFT boat or any other sort of identifiable US Navy craft into Cambodia in ‘68 or ‘69. There were both accidental and clandestine incursions back then, but they were few and documented. The accidental ones were a big no-no and involved Navy boats. The clandestine incursions were “deniable” exercises and would never have been authorized using US Navy boats (there was no shortage of sampans and junks and other non-Navy craft).

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:39 am 34. penwil:

I’ve no idea how much influence the MSM has any more and how much they are just preaching to their own choir.

During last year’s California governor’s recall election, the state MSM went in to a full court press to keep Gray Davis in office, coupled with an all out attack against Arnold. Obviously it didn’t work, but why didn’t it work is the question. Did the voters hear the media’s message and then reject it, or were the voters simply tuning the media out from the get go? Or was it just that Arnold’s Hollywood star power overroad everything else? He’s been in office a year now and he holds a 65% approval rating in this most blue of states, again in spite of the media’s fairly consistent attempt to cast him in the negative.

Still, I am not as confident as some of you that Bush will win this thing. At the moment he is struggling in the polls, although he’s only down by a few percentage points (the 6 pt lag in Florida, though, is most worrisome), Yet, conversely, Kerry hasn’t been able to pull more than a few percentage points ahead in spite of month upon month of glowing support by the MSM juxaposed against massive doses of negativity for Bush. One would think that if the MSM had the influence they thought they did, Kerry would be 15 points ahead in the polls and not 4 to 5.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:47 am 35. Matthew Cromer:

Hollywood, I’m very very curious how journalists who vote 90% Democrat and 10% Republican can possibly be seen to have a conservative bias. It’s a preposterous and risible allegation. Any objective examination of the facts (such as this Yale study: http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf) makes it patently obvious that the mainstream American Media is far more liberal and far more biased in favor of the Democrat party than the citizenry at large.

I’m sure it seems to have a conservative slant if you are Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, but to people grounded in the real world the true favoritism is readily apparent. Anyone arguing something different is in barking moonbat territory or is a liar.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:05 am 36. Syl:

I think part of the polling results right now have nothing to do with the MSM but are a result of gas prices.

The Saudi’s claim to be pumping about as much as they can. Futures prices are still rising and there’s talk it’s due to speculation.

Could Soros and his billions be affecting that?

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:10 am 37. Ann:

Oh, well, if there are FOOTNOTES! it must all be true!

Michael Bellesiles’s book Arming America was well footnoted as well, but when people actually looked at those footnotes in detail his thesis totally fell apart–with the added fact that many of Bellesiles’s footnotes were fabricated.

My point is: footnotes, in and of themselves, are not proof. Accurate footnotes that can be researched and proven may very well damn Kerry. But as of yet, I have not seen anyone examining those footnotes in detail. Until I see that, I will not take their mere existence as proof.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:20 am 38. Fresh Air:

Rick B.–

Regarding shipping. If the book’s embargo date was August 15, I would expect books will begin shipping by then. Amazon may have run out and Regnery may be going back to the presses now to do a second run. Printing only takes a couple of days, but order fulfillment generally takes at least a week.

Ann–

You are right about footnotes. However, the man who wrote the book, John O’Neill, is a very experienced trial attorney. I would guess he wrote the book to stand up in court. The footnotes I have seen thus far are very strong.

Ultimately, some of these allegations amount to a they said/he said thing. But there is much more to the book than claiming all five of Kerry’s citations were bogus. From the tidbits that have come out, there is a bunch of stuff will show very poor judgment. My guess is the notion that Kerry had an “agenda” the moment he arrived in country will be threaded throughout the book. It may not doom him, but it will make a lot of readers wonder about his moral fiber.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:31 am 39. Ann:

I’ll add one more thing: So far, the Kerry people have done nothing to actually counter the specifics of the book. If time goes by without them doing so, I would think it would be safe to assume that they can’t attack the book, because the book is stating the truth.

I just don’t think enough time has gone by yet to make that assumption.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:32 am 40. flenser:

hollywood

The “some people” that you mention are the staff of the WaPo itself. That is, they are telling us that they have been guilty of being pro-Bush. Pardon me if I find that a little self-serving. Dishonest, even.

They say that they were guilty of listening to the “Bush administration” case for the invasion of Iraq. They neglect to mention that it was also the Kerry case, the Clinton case, the Democrats case, the UN’s case …

In short, they are simply practicing more deception and misdirection and smearing Bush again. Gee, like they never did that before.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:32 am 41. Knucklehead:

Syl:

I’m no economist but I don’t think Soros has enough billions to move the oil futures market and if he does and is gambling that doing so will win the election for Kerry, he may be out of the billionaire business soon. Soros may be a raving moonbat and willing to pour scores of millions of dollars into defeating Bush but I can’t imagine the guy is willing to risk oil futures moving kinda money. Lost that gamble and he goes home and plays everyday millionaire rather than election shaking billionaire. That doesn’t strike me as the way the likes of Soros would play the game.

Penwil:

I don’t know any way to figure out how much influence the MSM has with voters anymore. I can’t even tell who votes and who doesn’t. I’ve had numerous animated discussions with various people I would have wagered were voters fersure only to find that they don’t freakin’ vote?!?! They have strong opinions but have apparently long since decided that politics sucks and its all rigged and their vote doesn’t count and they don’t seem to have any inclination or intention to actually go cast a vote. And from my unscientific survey results concerning this, that element seems to be nearly 100% ABB.

Now what to polls pick up and what don’t they and how invested is the MSM in trying to make sure that Kerry wins (or that Bush loses which seems to be their primary concern)?

How are the +/- margins of error calculated? Do they take into account that some people who might not be the least bit inclined to vote will describe themselves as “likely to vote” just so their opinion will be “heard”? And if the MSM is invested (I think they are, but I can’t prove it) how hard is it for them to get the results (or publish results they want) they want out of a poll?

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:37 am 42. flenser:

doublecola

“Yes, you’re correct, but the content of the article seems to only address the statements in the ad.”

Set all that aside for now. Don’t you find

it just a little strange that a fair, impartial, objective newspaper like the WaPo is doing the Kerry campaigns work for them, by attacking the integrity of the Swift Boat vets?

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:38 am 43. Charlie (Colorado):

For what it’s worth, Amazon is predicting a ship date of 23 August for my copy of Unfit.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:42 am 44. DennisThePeasant:

Penwil-

I would note that the best way to guage polls is to watch what the candidates say, not what MSM pollers say. Any pollster worth his salt can skew a poll to get the results he wants, therefore I wouldn’t get too worried about MSM polls. What is interesting, and has basically passed unnoticed this week, is that Kerry has made significant policy position statements (Iraq and education) moving himself much closer to Bush’s positions. In both cases, the position shifts are enough, in and of themselves, to piss off portions of his base constituencies. That he is willing to do it now is an indication that he is getting internal polling data suggesting that (a) his positions are not viewed favorably by a significant portion of ‘undecideds’ and (b) he cannot win the election without making these shifts.

The best polling data available is the polling data that isn’t available. You have to track the candidates on specific issues/policy positions to get a sense of what they are seeing. Internal polling is the only polling around that is rigorously vetted for bias. Because the candidates are using it to help win the election, they are taking the steps necessary to ensure there is no spin to what polling they use. Forget the MSM polls and watch the candidates.

DCThunder-

Given Mike Barnicle’s career, did you really expect him to be anything but sympathetic to a serial liar? Who is he to cast the first stone on making stuff up for public consumption?

Beyond that, though, the fact that Imus and Barnicle feel the need to shill for Kerry to Imus’ 10 million listeners tells you that (a) this issue is hot, irrespective of the MSM, and (b) they are worried as hell about it.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:43 am 45. Kevin P:

hollywood and Doublecola:

Compare the WAPO, NYT,and LAT, coverage of the Bush AWOL “Scandal” with the Christmas in Cambodia story. Both were regards to Vietnam service.The AWOL story had been coovered in the 2000 election. The only reason it came back was not because of new evidence but because the DNC started calling Bush AWOL. The Army had given Bush an honourable discharge.

The press did not take the army at its word. There was a full court media frenzy. There were editorials DEMANDING Bush release all of his records. It was covered wall to wall on TV and in those noble scions of journalism. And Bush was not making his service in the war the focal point of his campaign as Kerry is. They peppered Bush’s press secretary with questions on a daily basis for at least two weeks. There wasn’t 250 Vietnam veterans making this charge. It was largely Terry McAulife and the DNC.

Now look at the Christmas in Cambodia story. The LA times proclaimed they would not cover it on the second day of the story. And other then the editorial saying they would not touch it with a ten foot pole they haven’t. Please give me the reason why Bush’s AWOL story was worthy of full court press coverage by the assorted Times and Post’s of this country. If you can tell me why that story was crucial and this story is not relevant I might agree that the press is not biased. Before you formulate your answer remember that the AWOL story ended up being unfounded. Bush served the required amount of time to get his HD. He broke no rules doing it. Even the LA Times was forced to report this fact. So far the first charge by the swifties has proven to be true.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:46 am 46. Rick Ballard:

FA, Ann,

Excellent points. I keep coming back to that old Navy tradition of keeping a ships log. I don’t know if the Swift boats kept logs but if they did I’ll bet O’Neill has a nice transcribed copy of the logs for Kerry’s boats. As well as every AAR (after action report) Kerry wrote. The AAR was supposed to be filed after any significant “contact” with the enemy. As OIC it would have been Kerry’s responsibility to complete the AAR and also to verify the log on a daily basis. The possible existence of AAR’s and the log may be what is keeping Kerry’s campaign from asserting more than they have to date. It’s rather obvious that Kerry doesn’t have a clue as to what the Swifties have in their hands wrt records.

As Winter Soldier nears I would imagine that Kerry is going to find it increasingly hard to sleep. Facts are such stuborn things and liars need such good memories.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:47 am 47. bdog57:

DC,

There will only be “outcry” if the MSM says there is. Since this event would help Bush, there will be no outcry (Much as there were anti-American rallies in Iraq -w/ small crowds- but no pro-American rallies in Iraq -w/really big crowds.)

Ann,

The book has footnotes to back up its assertions. The Kerry campaign has nada on the Cambodia issue, and refuses (as of yet) to lay these claims to rest -if they are untrue- by opening his military records. Your larger point is taken, but within the context of the opposing side’s argument it is kind of moot.

All,

Instapundit has remarked that the media has chosen to support Kerry at a cost to their credibility. I may be young, but they never spun things this bad for Monicagate nor any other Dem cause in my short existence. Bush needs to win to permit a sea change in the political landscape that will reform the DNC and their propaganda organ, the MSM.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know why the MSM would expend credibility capital on Kerry. He neither directly supports the DNC platform nor does he have the charisma/political ties to accomplish anything should he obtain office. It really is ABB mentality because no one that I’ve encountered or even seen on TV (other than at the convention) honestly thought he was a great candidate/human being. Howard Dean was far more representative of the party’s values. He would have lost, but then again so will Kerry (Fret not, Penwil. This is the same state that re-elected Jeb in 2002 by 56-43 IIRC.)

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:52 am 48. Knucklehead:

Ann:

So far, the Kerry people have done nothing to actually counter the specifics of the book. If time goes by without them doing so, I would think it would be safe to assume that they can’t attack the book, because the book is stating the truth.

The basics of the complaints against Kerry have been taking shape for quite a while. It surprises me that Kerry’s team doesn’t have anything that appears to be a coherent initial response well developed by now.

The fact that so far the response has been the pretty standard round of Clintonista character assassination stuff seems telling, but I’ll be darned if I know what it tells other than that there’s no easy way for them to deal with the specifics of the book.

Maybe they are waiting for good reason but… If I were part of that team I’d be suggesting that we want the book refuted before it ever hits the bookstores. Keep people from reading it by getting out ahead of a few of the specifics. The fact that it seems to be getting ordered in wildly large numbers suggests that there are a whole lot of people who don’t know much about Kerry and the campaign puff pieces aren’t satisfying their needs. I suppose rich Bush supporters could be placing orders for bajillions of books the same way Soros finances every Bush-hater 527 out there, but that just doesn’t strike me as particularly likely.

I’m no campaign strategist but this is starting to smell like the Kerry gang has nothing but the stubborn MSM mule to ride as far as this story goes.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:52 am 49. hollywood:

syl,

Here’s one reason why Bush might not be polling so well. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/opinion/12thu1.html

Add to this the 43 million Americans with no health insurance (78 million if you include seasonal workers when out of work).

knucklehead,

I don’t have the quote(s) in front of me. Did Kerry actually say he was on a Swift boat at the time of the alleged Cambodian adventure?

Ann,

Right on footnotes, wrong on assumptions about the book (see doublecola’s thought on TNR’s “advice” to Kerry).

matthew and flenser,

Sure, I agree that journalists generally are a hard living liberal crowd, but you simply can’t generalize about MSM or any media across the board. Ah, Robert Novak? George Will? It’s an issue by issue thing. And some people get more slack than others. After his election and a brief quiet/testing period, the LA Times has been fairly nice to Arnold, particularly if you consider his budget plan (more borrowing from the future) is basically what Davis was doing already.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:56 am 50. jerry:

The Barnicle agreement shows the same kind of ignorance of military affairs that we see here from Hollywood or DC. Barnicle seems to be under the impression that SWIFT boats operated like larger vessels which either go it alone or when in formation are still pretty much independent when it comes to observing the fight. Actually, SWIFT boats operated like helicopter gunships or aircraft, i.e., in coordinated tactical formations. You cannot assess what went on during an engagement until you talk to all the participating elements. Nobody has a complete view of situation. Therefore, it is more likely that the combined accounts of the SWIFTIES who were also part of the engagement have a more accurate and complete view of the fight then Kerry ever could.

The argument that “they didn’t serve with Kerry” is equivalent to saying that nobody served with GWB…He flew a single seat fighter.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:56 am 51. bdog57:

Ann,

I see that by the time I finished my post you had already responded to my thoughts on the matter. I need to learn to write faster. (I read today that WFB could bust out a 750-word article in 20 minutes…I only wish I could go half that fast).

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:56 am 52. Rick Ballard:

DtP,

Excellent points on polling. Kerry keeps trying to paddle his canoe ever closer to W.

I said the day this broke that it was the first campaign test for Kerry. You noted that the convention was actually the first test and upon reflection I’d have to agree. So, what’s your opinion of how Kerry’s campaign is handling the second test?

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:06 pm 53. Fresh Air:

Hollywood–

Robert Novak and George Will are pundits, not reporters. The people writing the news stories are overwhelmingly liberal and biased against the president. That is the issue. You are using the Alterman Excuse; the op-ed pages are not the issue.

bdog57–

Do you remember Bush I in 1992? The MSM ran the same play then. A mild recession (actually over before the election) was suddenly the Great Depression of 1893. The difference is now they are in tighter formation.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:07 pm 54. bdog57:

hollywood,

NR has a roundup of Kerry in Cambodia stuff.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:08 pm 55. Rick Ballard:

Jerry,

If I have understood what I’ve read correctly, the crew and officers of the Swift boats were billeted either on shore or in floating “barracks” for want of a better term. They didn’t actually live on the boats any more than a tank crew “lives” in a tank. If you are sharing a billet with a guy, how in the world can you not be serving with him. “They did’nt serve with him” has got to be among the most stupid arguments I’ve ever heard.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:11 pm 56. bdog57:

FA,

Tighter formation? Check. Undisclosed bias?…Undisclosed bias?…(Read it hollywood)

All,

A great place to get a good idea of what’s happening state-by-state is at Election Projection. The guy has a pretty good system and he seems to track things fairly well.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:14 pm 57. John Lynch:

Rick Ballard, Charlie (C)

My notice from Amazon on “”Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” John E. O’Neill;Hardcover;

is

“Shipping estimate for these items:

August 17, 2004

Delivery estimate:August 19, 2004 – August 20, 2004″

Wonder why the differences?

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:18 pm 58. hollywood:

kevin,

I was thinking about your point about why the media cover some political controversies more in depth than others. I lean toward the view that they are not so politically motivated as they are desirous of having a real horse race to feverishly report. So, this neck and neck polling thing shows they are achieving this. I think if one candidate starts to pull significantly ahead, you’ll see the stories start going the other way. Thus, if Kerry starts to look like a sure winner, they can always pull out the Swift boat stuff and take him down a peg or two.

The worst thing for the press is the early perception of a blowout. It’s unexciting and they don’t get Nielsen points, sell papers/ads/tv time.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:19 pm 59. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

Did Kerry actually say he was on a Swift boat at the time of the alleged Cambodian adventure?

I’m not going to bother tracking down all Kerry’s claims on this. “Gunboat” sticks in my head from one of the stories but I can’t claim he ever fully identified the type of boat. I’ve posted links to summaries in this or other nearby threads if you’d care to let your fingers do the walking.

If you’d like to make some case that Kerry commanded something other than a SWIFT boat (other than the Boston Whaler he ran for a day or three before he got his SWIFT boat) then I’ll leave that to you.

Kerry was an LTJG working the river over there for just over 4 months. If you (or Kerry’s apologists) want to try an explanation of Christmas in Cambodia that suggests Kerry ran a little clandestine sideline running ops in Cambodia on boats other than the ones he was officially assigned to command, I’ll leave that to you. I’ll just drop a little friendly warning, however, that it wouldn’t be a promising line to follow. Kerry may be the most decorated SWIFT boat vet to have served in Vietnam but I doubt the CIA was picking anyone so green to take them into Cambodia.

Also keep in mind that Kerry is already backtracking from the Cambodia claims.

He’s dead meat on the Cambodia thing and we’ll see nothing but damage control on this from Kerry’s campaign. They won’t make any claim that he was running junks and sampans into Cambodia for the CIA or SEALS.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:21 pm 60. Fresh Air:

Rick B., Jerry–

Another point is that Kerry’s former mates may very well appreciate that he got the hell out of dodge whenever the V.C. starting firing on them. In that sort of situation, it would be hard for Kerry’s interests not to be aligned with the crew’s. Who wants to be shot?

On the other hand, if Kerry repeatedly fled from battle (as he apparently did in the Rassman incident), he wouldn’t have been viewed as reliable by his peers on the other boats. I suspect this is what the man in the ad means when he says, “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.”

My feeling is this will be the most powerful argument in the book, powered as it is by the weight of immense circumstantial evidence and testimony.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:21 pm 61. penwil:

What I have never gotten about Kerry running for President on his service in Vietnam is why he and his party think I should give a flying fig. This is 2004, not 1968. Getting a sliver in the arm and rice, or whatever, shot into your butt doesn’t automatically make you into a leader or give you any particular insight into how to wage war on the level of a CIC. Even saving a man from drowning by pulling him out of the water doesn’t automatically make you a leader or CIC material. Kerry is asking me to weigh his paltry four months’ experience as a lieutenant jg commanding 5 other guys on a 50 ft boat, for God’s sake, against a man who’s just spent three + years experience as CIC of a military that successfully invaded and liberated two countries and 50 million people. Does he think I’m so stupid that I can’t discern the difference? He stands up there with his reporting for duty and the salute (a salute, btw, which looked–in the immortal words of my DI when I went through Marine bootcamp–like a soup sandwich) and that’s supposed to do it for me? From that I was supposed to get a message that he’ll prevent Iran from devloping nukes, stay the distance in Iraq, and take the war on terror to the Islmofacists before they can reduce one of our cities into a crater or a biological nightmare.

Get real.

And, besides, at least GWB can execute a decent a decent salute.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:22 pm 62. hollywood:

bdog57,

Thanks for the links. But if the MSM is supposed to be worth 15 points, why does the election projection guy show 3 points? I can’t believe things are going to get further apart as November approaches.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:35 pm 63. Rick Ballard:

John L.,

I just ordered mine yesterday – anticipating it being shipped on the first day of availability. I would imagine that the difference has to do with backlog. You got in early, Charlie a bit later and me last. I wish Amazon would release some sales numbers.

Or, you and Charlie are teachers pets – find someone else to sit with at lunch!

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:36 pm 64. DennisThePeasant:

Rick Ballard-

Right now I’d grade them at a “D”.

As I said days ago (and as Knucklehead says above), I am simply astounded that the Kerry campaign was unprepared for the Swift Boaters’ attack. Evidently the Kerry people made the assumption that the MSM would keep a lid on anything the Boaters’ did, which in the era of political talk radio and the internet is a rather bizarre assumption to make.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Kerry campaign, the DNC and the MSM have finally come to grips with the potential damage a close examination of Kerry’s military and Viet Nam related activities could do. That they didn’t come to this realization months ago indicates to me that the DNC and Kerry’s campaign are not being run by first-class political professionals, and it also indicates that the MSM is so insular and provincial that they remain completely oblivious to the fact that they can no longer control the public’s access to facts.

I would also note that the weakness we are seeing the Kerry campaign in dealing with the Swift Boaters is the same sort of weakness we saw in Kerry campaign’s design of the Democratic convention, in the sense that it betrays a seeming inability to process facts and opinions that reside outside a very narrow band of the political spectrum. This narrowness not only explains why nobody with Kerry would consider the Swift Boaters’ a serious threat to their campaign as well as why they would consider putting Michael Moore next to the Carters at the convention to be a good idea.

One of the points we have never really discussed at this site is the fact that the DNC has not covered itself in glory when it comes to furnishing professionals to their presidential candidates. Clinton was good enough by himself to get by this, but one would be hard pressed to name worse campaigns, in terms of organization effectiveness at the professional (as opposed to candidate level), that the Mondale, Dukakis and Gore campaigns. What we may be seeing is a Democratic Party weakness starting to show itself in the present campaign.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:44 pm 65. Barry Dauphin:

Polls are interesting though we have to be wary of them and how they are reported. This was the headline in LA Times the day before the California recall election: “Los Angeles Times: “At Wire, Recall Race Tightens Up.” Ahnold went on to a handy win.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:44 pm 66. Kevin P:

Hollywood:

When I accuse the press of being biased it is of course a matter of opinion. I actually wouldn’t mind so much if the would just admit it. I read and listen to highly biased writers and talkers but they are up front about it so I know where they are coming from, which helps me judge their output.

Your defense of the media that they are not biased but are just out for a close race is strange indeed. All of us carry certain biases and sometimes we don’t recognize them. Your defense of the press is making them seem like manipulative scum who don’t mind misleading the public with lies as long as they get what they want. I feel your defense of the media is far worse then what I was accusing them of. I understand you are a Lawyer. If I am ever your client for, lets say, robbery, please don’t use as my defense, ” Your Honor, Kevin couldn’t have possibly committed that robbery because at the time of the crime he was busy molesting his children”

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:48 pm 67. ricpic:

For Kerry Vietnam was about resume building, no more no less.

Cambodia just amounted to embroidery.

Hey, no big deal.

Conscience is such a drag, man.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:55 pm 68. bdog57:

hollywood,

Your remark about 15 points only serves to accentuate the disconnect between the public and the MSM. Thomas obviously thinks the game hasn’t changed. Clearly it has. His ego and past experience tells him 15 points.

If Kerry was smooth like Clinton, he would probably be right at this point (BTW, my point in linking to Thomas’ quote was to note that the MSM are indeed biased against Bush…though this bias does not necessarily lend itself to prophetic musings). As DtP notes though, this is not a very professionally run campaign and suppression of the story will not work in this age of instant information (via the internet, etc.).

And I still think that they should have gone with Dean. Kerry only serves as ideological constipation for the Dem Base.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:56 pm 69. penwil:

I have read, and in more than one place lately, that since 2000, the Republicans have gone all out to develop a deep and highly motivated grassroots get out the vote organization, particularly in the battleground states–Florida, in particular. Some have even credited that organization with the success of the 2002 elections, and they are supposed to be even deeper and more motivated this year. Whereas the Democrats apparently seem to be floundering somewhat in that area–if what I’ve read is to be believed, that is.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:05 pm 70. Knucklehead:

JMO, but I believe there are several overlapping and mutually supportive factors at work for why the MSM is so pro-Democratic Party and so anti-Bush.

One is that they have strong political affinity with the Dems. I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise. The MSM is owverwhelmingly “liberal” and the Dems are the “liberal” party. They believe themselves to be the elite, the brains, the caring, and so on. In this they are no different than the elites in our education system.

Another is that they have the nasty little problem of being businesses. Then must have eyeballs on their screens and pages otherwise they don’t make money. This is the “Hollywood Defense” and I think its partly true. A neck and neck election is in their interests and they will present it that way unless there is some overwhelming evidence to the contrary and, since they control what gets used as evidence, how can there be evidence to the contrary?

So, why are they anti-Bush? Partly because they are pro-Dem and he’s not a Dem. They are consistently anti-whoever-the-Republican is. I don’t see how anyone can claim any recent Republican president was anything but opposed by the preponderance of the MSM. They hated Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41. But they are also fighting to additional battles here. One is against the tide – they are losing influence and they don’t like it and, therefore, they are fighting against blogs and talk-radio and all forms of media they don’t control. They are digging in their heels and fighting a battle and doing it the only way they know how to – keep doing more of what they’ve been doing the past several decades only do it more vigorously.

And they are also fighting a personal battle against Bush 43. He is the first modern president to specifically reject playing the PR game by their rules and they are extracting a price for this. Dubya is specifically trying to break the chain of ever increasing need to be a great TV president. JFK started that, Nixon didn’t understand it, Reagan perfected it and Clinton understood it and ran with it. Dubya seems determined to break that chain and, I suppose, he must. They’re going to make him pay a price for being so impertinent. They’d be against him anyway but he just pisses them off because he doesn’t dance their tune. This is evidenced by the “most secretive administration ever in the history of all mankind charge” (the administration tries to keep a lid on leaks rather than trying to curry favor with star-reporters by slipping them info) and the fact that they’d rather run reality-TV reruns than put a presidential address on prime-time.

Dubya is thumbing his nose at the MSM and wagering that he can be successful without them. They, on the other hand, cannot tolerate the potential loss of prestige and status that would entail. If anyone shows presidential candidates the way out of TV slavery, the Tube-MSM is finished as a political force and, make no mistake, they are – or at least believe they are – a political force. IMO this is yet another reason to be pro-Bush. I want the MSM hammered out of the political influence business. I want them to report what the flock is going on and to stop trying to “shape” our world into their own fantasy. They don’t do their job so I’m all for Dubya firing their sorry butts

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:11 pm 71. Kevin P:

Holly:

I have to leave for awhile but here is just another thought. The mainstream press has self rightously got their knickers in a wad about the latest psuedo doc “Outfoxed.” They point to memos from the top that supposedly proove that their reporters are told what to report and they smuggly claim that that is a unjust restriction on the reporters sacred code of journalism. Yet when the Cambodia Christmas story broke the LA Times News Reporters learned from the Editorial Page that that story was not “Fair Game”. Thus any Times reporter that was inclined to actually follow the story learned on day one that it would never be printed, whatever they dug up. And don’t try to sell me the fiction that there is a wall of seperation between the two staffs. I read the LA Times every day and there news section and their editorial section march in perfect lockstep that any Marine would be proud of.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:13 pm 72. Matthew Cromer:

Hollywood,

I don’t know what to say in response. Just because there are conservative journalists (and the ones you mentioned are opinion pundits, not journalists) does not negate the fact that there are 10 times as many liberal journalists.

If you look at the media in aggregate, the overall bias is very, very substantially Democratic / Liberal.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:13 pm 73. Rick Ballard:

DtP,

Outside of the Clinton campaign people, are there any winning Dem strategists available? If the Dem party were a company and we could graph all partisan election outcomes, local, state and national from ‘92 through ‘02 with different symbols for each type of seat sought the overall trend lines would make it very hard to issue a ‘buy’ recommendation.

I agree with your overall assessment and would add that the advance work being done on Kerry’s “introduction to the American people tour” is pretty shabby. People are being made to wait in the sun and that doesn’t cheer anybody up. Additionally, it appears to me as if the candidate is holding way too many decisions for himself. The slow and uncertain responses indicate a level of “They don’t know what the hell they’re doing.” reactions that I don’t believe I’ve ever seen. Gore’s campaign was no masterpiece but it looks brilliant in comparison to the start of the Kerry campaign.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:13 pm 74. Sandy P:

Nice try, Hollywood, but do you know who the 43 m w/o insurance are????

I do.

Finally, the uninsured often have good access to medical care. Consider this:

15 million of the uninsured have incomes of $50,000 or more. The fastest-growing population of uninsured has incomes exceeding $75,000. About 14 million are eligible for Medicaid or the State Childreníís Health Insurance Plan but are not enrolled.

The “entire year uninsured” receive about half as much care, in dollar-valued terms, as the fully insured. As a last resort, you can always show up at an emergency room and simply demand care. In the year 2001, uninsured Americans received at least $35 billion in health care treatments.

The bottom line: When you put all the pieces together, the crisis of the uninsured is not nearly as bad as it sounds.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 4, 2003 at 07:55

—

Marginal Revolution is a good site.

Seasonal workers – Illegal immigrants???? That’s another discussion and Americans have been making their feeling known. What the activists have not asked themselves is when the attack comes and it is discovered they came across the border, will they have been seen as part of the problem or part of the solution? It’s been almost 3 years.

—

Small business owners – the capitalistic scourge of the world, college students, and don’t all 50 states have programs for children? So, why do we need another bureaucratic program sucking money out of health care when we have all the tools at our fingertips?

Now why would you want to overthrow the best medical system in the world and grab 1/6 of the economy for in the end, roughly 5% of the population?

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:22 pm 75. Sandy P:

Besides, “uninsured” means for a short period of time in a year.

Not going w/o insurance for an entire year.

My kid would fall under the “going hungry” definition. But we’re not poor.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:29 pm 76. Barry Dauphin:

OT-

The Iraqi Olympic soccer team upset Portugal 4-2.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:33 pm 77. Jamie Irons:

John Lynch wrote:

My notice from Amazon on “”Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” John E. O’Neill;Hardcover;

is

“Shipping estimate for these items:

August 17, 2004

Delivery estimate:August 19, 2004 – August 20, 2004″

Wonder why the differences?

I got the same dates, ordering my (second, for a friend) copy just a few minutes ago.

BTW, why does this “TypeCast,” or whatever the hell it is, tell you you are signed in, and then when you preview your comment, it signs you out!

Grrr!

Jamie Irons

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:34 pm 78. hollywood:

Barry,

I can’t believe I’m defending polls, but… In the case of the Cal. governor’s election, the situation was unique. Davis was not running–only urging folks to vote against the recall. Arnold was running against an odd field. So, on that election, I’m giving the pollsters a pass.

Kevin,

OK, I’m a cynic when it comes to the press–saw too many films scripted by Ben Hecht in my early years or something.

As for your criminal career–you’re safe. I don’t do criminal law.

bdog57,

I hear you about Dean. Unfortunately, the scream video was rapidly becoming this year’s Willie Horton.

Knucklehead,

I find that the press loves Rudy Giuliani–beyond what he deserves. No accident he’s a featured player at this convention.

Bush has the record, I think, for fewest actual press conferences. And, hell, he even managed to piss off Helen Thomas.

Sandy,

I’m lead to believe that the 78 million uninsured refers only to American citizens. And having folks show up to demand care at ERs is an incredibly inefficient drain on our health care system. And I think some would disagree with your view of our system as number one. Little problems like infant mortality, 43/78 million uninsured, etc. [Cue "We can do better. Help is on the way."]

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:41 pm 79. Knucklehead:

Well, as long as we’re going OT for sports news, how ’bout this political shocker:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/mcgreevey_040812.html

JMO, but this guy has had his dick in the taxpayer’s cookie jar since the day he took office so I can’t fathom why he’s resigning over this.

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:44 pm 80. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

How do you judge what Rudy Gulliani “deserves”? Those of us who’ve lived around the NYC metro for a long time recognize that he turned NYC around. NYC was sinking under the Dinken’s administration. Even the moonbats who hate him had to admit they could finally walk the streets again. I was talking to a recently retired NYC policeman (his last week on the job was spent at Ground Zero and after that he worked a few months for FEMA on site). There aren’t many folks outside the force that NYC cops “love” but they apparently “loved” Rudi despite the union catfights. BTW, there’s a bunch of folks that are working their tails off – have a talk with a few of NY’s Finest while you’re there, Roger.

He also provided incredible leadership following 9/11/01 while suffering serious medical problems. His behavior on the way out of office at that time of tragedy will undoubtedly provide tons of material for those who study leadership.

You Dems better hope he and Condi don’t form the ‘08 ticket ’cause you won’t see anything north of 35% if they do

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:55 pm 81. Sandy P:

Hollywood – infant mortality. Don’t those figures include illegal immigrants? Or legal immigrants who came here after not having good HC in their countries? Considering we take in the most, odds are our stats would come down. Maybe that’s one reason polio is on the rise in this country.

Again, all easily fixable problems w/o turning us into Europe.

Take the tax burden off of the SBOs. Do you really want to fund someone who chooses not to have HC who makes $75k a year? That’s why HSAs are good. Why don’t those parents have their kids signed up? What about choice? Are American Indians included? They are sovereign nations, you know. Are the unions going to give up better coverage if they have it? I also thought Cabana Boy said “most Americans.” Not all.

Colleges could offer the 19-21 y.o. coverage while they’re in school, that’s 6-9 million of them. Are they considered “seasonal” because they only work in the summer? Or daddy could pay for it.

Again, why do we need another layer of bureaucracy?

The solutions are there, no need to nationalize it.

I’m gathering a tidy little file of HC info from Europe, Australia and Canada. From their articles.

There was also a study out in 2003, IIRC, around September about cancer survival rates of specific cancers comparing US and Europe/male/female. Ours was still the best. Around 9/30/03 al guardian also wondered aloud why more Brits than Americans were dying from 4 certain diseases. But I wasn’t the link saver I am now.

Care to enlighten us on the MRI situation in Canada? How about the fiscal side of NHC? Have you paid attention to France and Britain? Canada? Australia?

Cue “nuance.”

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:56 pm 82. hollywood:

Knucklehead,

You and the NYT are more or less making my point. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/politics/campaign/12rudy.html

Aug 12, 2004 - 1:59 pm 83. Sandy P:

This is also from Tyler’s 12/4/03 posting:

It also turns out that many of the uninsured are uninsured for only part of the year. According to the CBO, those uninsured for the entire year amount to somewhere between 21 and 31 million, knocking a full 12 million off the original total.

Some of the uninsured are more accurately a counting error:

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), [a] verification question lowered the estimate of the number of uninsured living in households with annual incomes of $75,000 or more by 16 percent. The verification question lowered by 4 percent the number of uninsured living in households with incomes under $25,000.

Many of the uninsured are in fact college students, who either rely on their parents, or are covered under their parents’ policies, read here. One estimate suggests that one out of seven college students lacks insurance, but it is hard to believe that most of these people have no other resources supporting them.

–

Tyler’s an economist, IIRC.

15% of the population – again, solvable w/the tools we have. Now if you want to talk about program for hardcore LT HC, that’s a different issue. Not people moving between classes.

Here’s something else to ponder:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-20-04.html

…The CBO’s figures may still be too high because they count millions of Americans who are Medicaid-eligible, and therefore have coverage whenever they need it. One-third of all “uninsured” children (2.9 million) fall into this category (the CBO gives no estimate for adults). Moreover, the persistently uninsured are mostly young (39 percent are under age 25, and another 22 percent are under age 35) or healthy (86 percent report their health to be “good,” “very good,” or “excellent”).

Rather than admit they have been overstating the number of uninsured by a factor of two and make an embarrassing retraction, which might tend to deflate the campaign, Cover the Uninsured Week continues to claim there are 44 million uninsured. The only possible way to explain this is that they take refuge in the CBO’s finding that the original, faulty government statistic does happen to be roughly equivalent to the number of Americans who lack insurance at any specific point in time, rather than for the entire year….

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:07 pm 84. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

Perhaps you can explain to me how the current situation we have with health care and insurance (and tort lawyers) is the fault of George W. Bush or his administration or, for that matter, Republicans.

Do you have any familiarity with nationalized health care? Some of what happens is remarkably good, some other things remarkably bad (IMO). Perhaps Erik will weigh in here but I am aware of two cases over there (family) which make me wonder a whole lot about nationalized health care. Both concern what we euphamistically call “the elderly”. One had cataracts and had become nearly blind while she waited for cataract surgery (14 months IIRC) and then got only one eye repaired. The story among the natives for that sort of thing is that they want to make sure the patient will live another 18 months or so before they bother fixing both cataracts. I’m not entirely sure that’s the reason, but nobody seemed surprised by the repair of one eye rather than both. The other was gall-bladder removal. Eighteen months waiting to have a gall-bladder removed. The poor guy was miserable throughout that time. Its “free” but apparently it isn’t very timely.

On the matter of infant mortality, I can’t give a cite because I saw the piece ages ago. All I can say is it wasn’t a “right wing” source (TNR?). The article was by a health care expert (the social services variety) who was looking at the matter of infant mortality in the inner city. He made a VERY convincing case that high infant mortality in that population is NOT due to any lack of the availability of health services (they exist for pre-natal and infant care) but rather due to social issues (pregnancy too early, drug and other substance abuse, etc) that lead to not taking advantage of available health services.

You can’t just throw around numbers of people who “don’t have health insurance” or “infant mortality rates” without digging into those things deeply. Another thing you can’t do is blame the fact that we don’t have a nationalized or socialized health care system on George Bush. That’s right out of WTFx2 country. Why didn’t we get it, if we want it, during two Clinton terms?

Maybe because it is beyond the ability of the office to deliver such a thing. Go beat up your legislators if you want socialized medicine. This ain’t Cuba and our president’s aren’t dictators.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:17 pm 85. RogerA:

Sandy P: the points you posted re access to health care are very well taken–Health Insurance is only marginally correlated to health care–the charge that x million people without health insurance is taken as an indictment about health care–a few scholarly journals (such as Health Affairs) have tried to track the relationship, but it is vague and difficult to do. Moreover having health insurance does NOT mean that you will get good health care, or can even afford it. The debate about health care is extraordinarily complicated–one that does not lend itself to soundbites on TV news and for the most part is poorly covered in the media (of all stripes).

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:18 pm 86. hollywood:

Sandy,

I’m impressed by your work and look forward to more links when you get your file together. I don’t claim to have the answers. I’m just appalled that we have so much wealth yet so many lack basic necessities.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:22 pm 87. Sandy P:

Hearland Org – conservative but you might be interested in their perspective:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12264

I don’t think I saved the Washington State article, they’re trying to revamp their program because it’s going bankrupt and want a $5 copay.

One mother interviewed (about $25K/yr) didn’t have cable, she was bound and determined to get that money so she thought she’d either have to give up her cell phone or internet service.

My parents were poor. My mom had 1 pr of shoes at a time and for most of her childhood had an outhouse, In the Chicago suburbs.

I’d wager that woman’s cell phone taxes and fees alone would be costing her $70/y – basing hers on mine, and she might be paying landline taxes and fees, too. That’s a lot of Dr. visits.

That’s 1 dr. visit a month for her child if she gave up 1 phone.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:23 pm 88. RogerA:

Any charges that somehow the Bush administration is responsible for the (alleged) health care crisis is remarkable disingenuous. As a matter of interest, Richard Nixon proposed a single payer system in the early 1970s (he was much more progressive than generally given credit for). Guess which Senator blocked his proposal for purely political reasons: Ted Kennedy. (Only thing that Kennedy ever did right, BTW)

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:25 pm 89. RogerA:

Hollywood–please tell me what necessities our health care system lacks? And please be careful not to conflate needs and wants.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:27 pm 90. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

I’m fed up with the NYT’s idiotic registration system and just won’t do their online anymore – they can’t seem to keep track of registrants and I’m sick of registering. If you are pointing to some article about how much the MSM loves Rudi I can only respond that it wasn’t that way when he was a Republican officeholder. The NYT trashed him relentlessly until the last few months in office and was only kind to him then because the citizens of NYC woulda probably torched their offices if they’d dared to say anything unkind.

Rudi is a character and his whole schtick works well on TV. They trash him and people love him. Its oddly similar to what Koch had (although the NY MSM was not unkind to Koch) – a wierd sort of loveable, tell it like it is thing

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:28 pm 91. penwil:

My husband works as a process manager for Kaiser Pemanente, a large HBO headquartered in California. He met recently with a delegation from the Canadian health care system, who had come down here to study Kaisers’ processes to see if they could adopt some of them in time to save their own system, which is fast circling the drain and going down. I heard some real horror stories from my husband about Canada’s health care system after those meetings, and those stories were coming from the mouths of the very Canadians who are in charge of running their system. Women are literally dying up there of breast cancer while waiting for an appointment to get a mammogram, yet you aren’t allowed to jump the line by paying for your own mammogram because that would “be unfair.” Of course the reality is that those who can afford it come to the US for their health care, and the poor have to make do with the failing system at home–so how “fair” is that?

Socialized medicine at its finest.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:35 pm 92. hollywood:

RogerA,

I agree with you about Nixon, and I think we need the single payer system. I doubt we’ll get that with Kerry (in fact I’d doubt anyone at this point will approach what Nixon had in mind–alas).

Knucklehead,

I agree the NYT registration thing is goofy. I think I also agree with you on this NYC love/hate Rudi thing. Though Fran Leibowitz would probably disagree, but that’s too far OT. Let’s face facts: 9/11 changed the playing field for Rudi.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:38 pm 93. RogerA:

Add to that, Penwil, Canadian doctors salaries are capped and their workloads are prescribed–Why do you think Canada has trouble maintaining adequate numbers of physicians, let along specialists? We are the beneficiaries of the Canadian system in terms of docs. How do you think Hollywood as a lawyer would like his/her salary to be capped?

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:39 pm 94. RogerA:

Hollywood: I dont think any president or any congress (at least as so closely balanced now) could deliver a single payer system–and political rhetoric aside (from both parties) I am not sure there is a national consensus about a desired health care system. Having said that, though, medicare is coming uncomfortably close to being the primary driver of the system given its sheer volume of coverage. If anyone is really interested in looking at the health care system I would recommend the journal Health Affairs–its is an academic journal but not excessively so–articles are generally readable and not written in turgid academese.

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:44 pm 95. Jamie Irons:

Penwil (2:35 PM)

You noted:

My husband works as a process manager for Kaiser Pemanente, a large HBO headquartered in California. He met recently with a delegation from the Canadian health care system, who had come down here to study Kaisers’ processes to see if they could adopt some of them in time to save their own system…

(How the hell did we get on Health care? Well, I’ll go with it.)

I am a Kaiser physician in northern California, a department chief next year. My wife, a physician, is very high in the Kaiser hierarchy.

She tells me the Brits have come over to get the same sort of advice that you say the Canadians are seeking. (I hadn’t heard about the Canadians till you wrote this.)

Anybody that thinks a bunch of politicians, Dems or Republicans, can figure out how to solve of our health care problems, is talking out their *ss.

Physicians and other health care “providers” (I hate that term!) can, and will, figure the problem out, with the aid of a few good medical economics people and business leaders. Kaiser Permanente is leading the way. But we have a long way to go.

Jamie Irons

Aug 12, 2004 - 2:57 pm 96. Sandy P:

GoreBot speaks!

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Former Vice President Al Gore charged Thursday that President Bush’s nomination of Republican Rep. Porter Goss to lead the CIA continues the president’s pattern of using the Sept. 11 tragedy for political benefit.

Even better:

…About 340 members of Music Row Democrats, a group formed this year by the city’s recording industry to counter the image of country music as a bastion for Republicans, attended and frequently interrupted his remarks with applause.

Among those in the crowd were Gore’s wife Tipper and artists Steve Earle and Hal Ketchum.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:18 pm 97. penwil:

Uh, that’s Kaiser Permanente and HMO . . . long day.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:19 pm 98. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

I’m just appalled that we have so much wealth yet so many lack basic necessities [in health care].

What?

This is right up there with your sterling analysis of how to improve the Iraq reconstruction effort:

[Begin Analysis] Spend more money, but not with Halliburton. [End Analysis]

You have the most depressing tendency of making statements which are completely and utterly devoid of content, such as the statement above, and then attempting to pass them off as thoughtful commentary. At this point I am only surprised that you didn’t link to some newspaper article that reinforced the pointlessness of your post.

You seem to want to be here and you seem to want to be taken seriously, both of which are fine, but couldn’t you put a bit more effort into it?

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:22 pm 99. hollywood:

RogerA,

“How do you think Hollywood as a lawyer would like his/her salary to be capped?”

FWIW, as a civil servant whose group’s contract has expired with no more COLAs pending, I’m totally capped for now.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:25 pm 100. DennisThePeasant:

Gee, I wonder if all those Music City Morons were lined up to give their backing to Tipper when she was heading up PMRC’s attempt to subvert the constitutionally protected right of free speech for musicians.

Like John Ashcroft has ever attempted anything as dangerous to our constitution. What morons.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:27 pm 101. Sandy P:

Hollywood – CANADA HAS NO PRIVATE INSURANCE, it’s single-payer.

PEOPLE ARE DYING.

START READING CANADIAN BLOGGERS – NOT YELLING

EMPHASIZING.

One Indian Tribe – separate nation – contracted/w the Euros to put and health facility on their land, the socialist administration is screaming – because people could actually pay to get services and not wait in line. The socialists want the courts to stop them. Can’t give Canadians choice – well, they do now get AJ, but FoxNews still a no-no!

Fraser Institute is a good place to start, a Canadian think tank.

This stuff is too serious for emotions. We’re all going to die, we have to face up to it. Even OR tried to decide how much is too much because we can’t fund every want or boob job.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:27 pm 102. hollywood:

DtP,

“You have the most depressing tendency of making statements”

Oh well, FTLT…again!

Hey! I said you could do reconstruction with Bechtel, Schlumberger, Mitsubishi. If they bid for it and win.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:28 pm 103. Sandy P:

Hollywood – CANADA HAS NO PRIVATE INSURANCE, it’s single-payer.

PEOPLE ARE DYING.

START READING CANADIAN BLOGGERS – NOT YELLING

EMPHASIZING.

One Indian Tribe – separate nation – contracted/w the Euros to put and health facility on their land, the socialist administration is screaming – because people could actually pay to get services and not wait in line. The socialists want the courts to stop them. Can’t give Canadians choice – well, they do now get AJ, but FoxNews still a no-no!

Fraser Institute is a good place to start, a Canadian think tank.

This stuff is too serious for emotions. We’re all going to die, we have to face up to it. Even OR tried to decide how much is too much because we can’t fund every want or boob job.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:29 pm 104. RogerA:

Hollywood: let me rephrase: do you LIKE being capped? The Canadian doctors do not, in part because they are capped at a very low level compared to the docs in the states.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:31 pm 105. hollywood:

RogerA,

In my experience, the only thing folks like capped is their teeth.

Sandy P,

“we can’t fund every want or boob job”

OK, ok, I’ll forfeit my boob job. Seriously, one of the more creative thoughts in the recent California governor’s race was the idea (put forth by a porn star) to tax all boob jobs. It’s a growth industry here.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:36 pm 106. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

Oh, well, that changes everything. Now we have the inside poop (literally) on ‘Reconstructing Iraq For Dummies’ by The Kerry Cadres. Due out any day now, and printed entirely in crayon…

As Squidward said to Patrick: “Go be stupid somewhere else.”

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:37 pm 107. Rick Ballard:

Jamie,

Perhaps you can recommend a board certified neuroproctologist in southern California for one of our regular commenters?

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:43 pm 108. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

Let’s face facts: 9/11 changed the playing field for Rudi.

I don’t know what “facts” you want me or anyone else to face. Gulliani’s record as Mayor of NYC stands all by itself. It may be the toughest job in America next to being President and he did it extremely well. NYC was different and, IMO, much better when he finished than when he started.

His leadership during the 9/11 crisis was no suprise to me and if he gets praise for it now I have no problem with that. Did it make him nationally famous? Yeah, no doubt. But it isn’t as if he was an unkown prior to that – he would have built a national political base regardless, assuming that he was interested in doing so.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make by bringing this into the thread.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:46 pm 109. Knucklehead:

An MSM Observer Request for All

I would appreciate it if y’all would keep an eye open for how this little matter of the Governor’s Gay Lover is played at an MSM outlet near you. Here’s what I expect and I would like to get some idea if I’m correct:

- the biggest push will be to play this as another tragedy of America’s (or NJ’s) anti-gay bias

- next up will be America’s moralizing intolerance with people’s personal sex lives

Take my work for it, neither of those things is the real story here. If anyone of the non-NJ aware participants at Roger’s Place comes away with a clear idea of why this has caused a Governor to promise to resign, please let me know (I know, I just don’t want to make it obvious to those unfamiliar with the full story).

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:57 pm 110. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

Psst! She’s a troll – that’s what they exist for.

Aug 12, 2004 - 3:59 pm 111. hollywood:

DtP,

You should change your name to Dennis the Pleasant.

“As Squidward said to Patrick: ‘Go be stupid somewhere else.’”

As Spongebob said to Squidward, “Squidward, you’re steaming! You’re like a steamed vegetable–only smarter.”

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:07 pm 112. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood:

Hey! I said you could do reconstruction with Bechtel, Schlumberger, Mitsubishi. If they bid for it and win.

But, Hollywood: Halliburton did bid for the gig and win.

What’s more, they did so during Clinton’s second term.

That’s the reason — well, one of the reasons — that the whole Halliburton thing is so stupid.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:08 pm 113. hollywood:

Knucklehead,

“I have no idea what point you’re trying to make by bringing this [the press' treatment of Rudi]into the thread.”

As you may recall, this was in response to your claim that the MSM adores Demos and hates the GOP. Once again, generalizations fail to make the case.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:10 pm 114. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

Finding an exception merely proves the rule. Do you pay any attention to life?

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:16 pm 115. PeterUK:

The National Health Service in the UK was predicated on the fallacy that if public health was improved demand would go down,all else stems from that basic mistake.It has been discovered that there is no upper limit to demand as medicine advances faster than the funding.Free at the point of use now covers a myriad of complaints,from a headache to chronic disease which require life long treatment.

The cost of the NHS,on 2002 figures,National statistics,is ?80,620 million,7.7% of GNP.This breaks down into ?67,201m public and ?13,419 private healthcare,the NHS has some one million employees.

All this of course mens that the NHS is subject to immense political pressure from both government and health service unions.There are now more administrators than medical staff.

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law basically means that if you can get here you are entitled to free treatment.An example of this is that heterosexual aids is on the increase, most of the cases originating in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe.

Now there are extremely serious dilemmas facing Doctors, who now have to prescribe according to budget and the agendas of target meeting bureaucrats.An example of this is the growing number of operations on minor surgical problems to achieve the government ordained increase in operations.So if Granny has an ingrowing toenail and needs a hip replacement the toenail will get treated.Yes we are living longer but we are costing more when we are unproductive.

As for capping doctors pay,this has lead to a huge shortfall as newly trained UK doctors head for the US,this of course means decimating the Third World of its medical people.

One thing is certsin it is impossible to have free social medicine and open borders.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:20 pm 116. hollywood:

Knucklehead,

Do I pay any attention to life? Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:24 pm 117. Knucklehead:

PeterUK,

Thanks for a great post on the NHS. One of the issues we here in the US are going to have to face up to, and sooner than we might like, is that the cost of becoming and remaining a doctor is growing much faster than the financial rewards (which many claim are shrinking). Becoming a doctor is enormously expensive in terms of both dollars, length of training, and difficulty of training. The “citenzry” has no interest in picking up this cost. Would be doctors are expected to fund their education out of future earnings at the same time that the citizenry and the tort lawyers are demanding that their income be reduced.

If anyone knows middle-aged or older doctors just mention that your child wants to become a doctor. They will almost universally recommend against it with an explanation that includes complaints about how it has become an unsatisfying profession, is subject to constant malpractice attacks, and that the financial benefits are no longer worth the effort and aggravation.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:30 pm 118. Jamie Irons:

Knucklehead wrote:

If anyone knows middle-aged or older doctors just mention that your child wants to become a doctor. They will almost universally recommend against it …

My wife and I are both physicians (see above post). We are very grateful our four sons all became engineers.

Medicine is still a wonderful field if you are lucky enough to be a specialist. Primary care is becoming almost unsustainably difficult. (A significant part of my practice is treating primary care doctors.)

If politicos and bureaucrats determine how health care is to be allocated (see PeterUK’s post above) we will be in big trouble.

Does everyone remember how HillaryCare planning deliberately excluded MD’s (IIRC)?

OT to Rick Ballard: I’m in Northern Califfornia!!

Jamie Irons

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:48 pm 119. PeterUK:

In an effort to get the thread back to John Kerry,is it worthwhile pondering that the Democrats do not want the presidency this time roun?The WOT is a poisoned chalice for the incumbent,who would want the risk of Iraq,Afghanistan and al Qaeda besmirching their chapter in history.Why not let George Bush or whichever horses arse the Democrats use as a stalking horse to catch the odium,then in 2008 emerge squeaky clean as the new hope for America.I don’t know who would think like that but I sure you all have some ideas.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:52 pm 120. Kevin P:

Hollywood:

In your response to my statement that the unequal treatment of the Bush AWOL press frenzy and the Christmas in Cambodia press embargo your posited that it wasn’t liberal bias but the presses desire for a close election. The only problem with your answer is that at the time of the AWOL frenzy the press was already predicting a razor thin election result. They are still predicting a razor thin election result.So your idea that it was a desire for a close election makes no sense. Unless you can provide a more coherant response you still need to explain why the vast difference in two very similar stories. (See my original post if you wnt to go over the facts). So far the only difference I can see is the liberal bias. Your “close election” theory is still very weak.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:56 pm 121. Terrye:

I work in health care and I can assure you that I see more poor people than I do people with money. I know I work with people who refuse the health care the job offers because they would rather do something else with the money. I spend $61 a pay period [2 weeks] for health insurance while I work with people that just don’t want to spend the money. The truth is if people want to pay a high deductible they can get insurance for less than their car payment. If their income levels are low enough then the government would assist them. I do think that people would resent national health insurance because there would still be people like me paying for their own and they would feel that other people are getting something for nothing. Americans don’t much like that. In fact if this si something most Americans wanted it would have happened years ago. And yet Dems keep dragging out year after year and never deliver.

Kerry is out there now scaring the old people and promising them cheap medicine. That is probably what is giving him a lead in Florida. Tell the folks that the bad Repoublicans will take away their social security and medicare and promise the old codgers that you will give them cheap drugs from Canada.

I guess outsourcing is ok when it comes to drugs. Who needs those big bad American drug companies and the high paying jobs they create when we can import drugs from Canada, so what if they can’t even control a Sars outbreak? But even the president said if the Canadians can pass FDA rules they can ship drugs here.

I don’t know if the Dems will win but I do think the press such as Wapo have been very hard on Bush very easy on Kerry. The problem with that is reality catches up eventually. Whether it is medical costs to the government or the war in Viet Nam or past votes on Iraq. Sooner or later the truth will out. But I am not sure if sooner will be soon enough for Bush.

If he loses I hope the Republicans treat Kerry with all the fairness and respect they showed Bush. What goes around, comes around.

Aug 12, 2004 - 4:59 pm 122. Bostonian:

At a place where I worked a while back, there was a habitual hangout spot on Friday afternoon’s, the office of a woman I’ll call K. We’d take turns buying the beer and everyone would just go hang out there.

This happened even when K. was away on business. I always wondered if she minded that.

I wonder what reminded me of that?

Aug 12, 2004 - 5:16 pm 123. Terrye:

Bostonian:

Could it be the fact that this thread is way off topic and we are using Roger’s place as if it were our own?

Aug 12, 2004 - 5:38 pm 124. PeterUK:

Terrye,

This thread didn’t wander it was pushed.

Aug 12, 2004 - 5:59 pm 125. Rick Ballard:

Peter,

The thread neither wandered nor was it pushed. It constantly remained near if not within the primary topic. It did so even while being subjected to harassing fire from either, or perhaps both banks. Steadfast but true, it flowed ever onward, constantly nearing, if never actually reaching its objective. I have the hat to prove it.

TROLL NOTICE

Actual evidence of competence exhibited by Sen. Kerry in writing, promoting and carrying any substantive piece of legislation to completion would be appreciated. The tiniest scrap of evidence that Sen. Kerry has ever demonstrated the tiniest bit of executive experience will be met with wonder and amazement.

I’m going to save that notice and start posting it after every troll intrusion. Dennis will probably come up with a better one but it’ll do til someone beats it.

Aug 12, 2004 - 6:22 pm 126. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

There are many things wrong with the health payments system in our country.

I’m going to address one: the private health insurance market and medical underwriting.

If you should find youself unemployed, or starting a small company, and you have any “pre-existing” conditions, you have a big problem. You will be denied health care or your condition and anything resulting from it will not be covered. To give you an idea of pre-existing conditions, Blue Cross of Arizona will deny all coverage if you have ever taken an anti-depressant (Prozac, etc). This is called “medical underwriting” and it means deciding whether or how to insure you based on your medical history.

Net result: many people cannot buy insurance. Older people have a greater problem than younger people, as they are more likely to have pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, if you don’t have these problems and you buy private insurance, in most states it can be cancelled at any time. So “insurance” is an inappropropriate name.

I suspect this situation is why there are lots of people making $75,000 or more without medical insurance.

Now for more gotchas: if you aren’t poverty striken, you won’t be able to get insurance any other way. If you are hospitalized, you will pay up to five times what the insurance company would have paid for the same thing. As far as I can tell, even the VA will deny insurance unless you spend your assets down to a low level.

The system is set up so if you save responsibly and then lose your job in your ’50s (very common), your entire net worth is at risk in a medical crisis. Also, hospitals are vicious when it comes to collecting debts. Overall, I suspect this limits entrepreneurialism among older people.

So there is indeed a problem with a lack of health insurance. It is a problem caused by the way the market for such insurance must work: to avoid free riders (adverse selection), they must discriminate against the sick or vulnerable to be sick (wait until genetics gets better at forecasting illnesses). 30 years of paying into health insurance while employed is worth exactly zero once you are on your own.

One caveat – COBRA allows you to buy your employer’s insurance for 18 months (of course, you don’t get to deduct it like they do, and if they go belly up, you are screwed), after which (if you do everything exactly right), private carriers are required to insure you.

In fact, most private carriers won’t insure you anyway, ignoring the law. In Arizona, only Blue Cross will take a COBRA assigned risk. Also, the private carriers are allowed to charge you four times the price they would charge for someone who bought that same policy without the COBRA forcing. Note that the private carrier can cancel any time.

If you are sitting pretty with corporate insurance, a new practice called “lasering” is becoming more common where the insurance company says to the buyer “If you don’t have Fred and Jane in the pool, we can cut the price to the other employees $7/month each.” Depending on the company, Fred and Jane may find their job tenure dramatically shortened.

Aug 12, 2004 - 6:36 pm 127. mrp:

The Daily Telegraph is taking Mekongate rather seriously. The paper has devoted a leader to John Kerry’s tribulations.

Excerpt:

There are only two possible interpretations of this paradox. Either Mr Kerry is knowingly fabricating history for crass electoral advantage (and in rather odd contrast with his own renunciation of his Vietnam war experiences in the 1970s), or else he spent a fair amount of his time at war completely unaware of where he was. Neither possibility fits well with a campaign so squarely centred on Mr Kerry’s war record.

Seems a pity that Americans have to find a stone-cold analysis of the Democratic nominee’s trouble with the truth in an overseas broadsheet.

Aug 12, 2004 - 6:53 pm 128. Terrye:

John:

You have a point here. Gale ran into trouble because of a heart condition. And of course a lot of these problems do not manifest themselves until you are older.

The cost of health care has outpaced inflation in all states. People blame it on administrative costs and litigation. Nurses and therapists are well paid but not extravagantly so. Doctors tend to be in the six figures, but of course specialties tend to be higher priced. My doctor who was a Filipino just quit. I have no doctor. That is rural America for you. But the costs are too high.

I don’t know what the answer is. I do know that if you make an effort to pay, even at a monthly rate they can’t ruin you. People think they can, but they can’t. I do know a lot of older people who have put their property in the names of their children just to make sure they were safe. I don’t know if a national system would address this however. Would Kerry’s system force carriers to give you insurance if they had previously denied you?

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:00 pm 129. PeterUK:

Rick,

I take it that there is another hatless CIA operative wandering the jungles of Cambodia in search of his headgear? How many more of these people are they,why isn’t the MSM spotlighting the Hatless of Cambodia?

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:08 pm 130. Knucklehead:

Well, I suppose if we mice have been playing too rowdily while the cat is away, Roger will let us know when he finally wakes up and looks around the house.

As much as I’d like to it doesn’t seem we can talk about Kerry and his Magic Hat and the Cambodia that Stole Christmas constantly. JMO, but since I believe the Democratic Party has given the nation something of a Voyage from Hell these past few decades then any discussion of Dem talking points is on topic (how’s that for spin?).

Whichever it was among the ladies here at Roger’s Place who pointed me to Opensecrets I can’t thank you enough. I’m still not entirely sure what to make of the numbers I’m finding there but my early impression is, “Dang, the Megawealthy sure do love the Party of the Poor People!” I can’t imagine why that might be other than pure, unadulterated selflessness.

I don’t know how many National Review readers there are among the people here at Roger’s Place, but I just started going through my Aug. 23 issue and find it even more interesting than normal. The article titled Buffetted potentially sheds some light on why a GoJillionaire like Warren Buffet might be so supportive of, for example, efforts to stop the repeal or phase out or reduction of the estate tax. No doubt the Larger Truth is pure altruism but it seems ol’ Warren and Berkshire Hathaway have been making a pile o’ dough on large scale buyouts (newspapers no less!) provoked to settle estate taxes. And gee, guess what one of the businesses WB/BH is moving into? Nah, couldn’t be insurance to offset estate taxes, could it?

The book review section was especially interesting. I think I’ll actually go pick up a copy of Betrayal

Well, hope Roger is enjoying NYC. I don’t get there all that much anymore – just a handful of times per year. Used to get to the WTC rather frequently. Even had the green ID card that let me get to the elevators. Those were the days.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:25 pm 131. hollywood:

knucklehead,

The core of Berkshire Hathaway’s business (despite being a name derived from the textile business) has always been insurance and re-insurance. It owns a large re-insurer (and lost some significant dough resulting from 9/11) as well as GEICO. So, the insurance angle is no surprise.

terrye,

“The problem with that is reality catches up eventually. Whether it is medical costs to the government or the war in Viet Nam or past votes on Iraq. Sooner or later the truth will out. But I am not sure if sooner will be soon enough for Bush.”

Hello, Bush tax cuts! Reality has caught up. In new jobs. In the economy. In the record breaking deficit.

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:40 pm 132. Knucklehead:

I keep wondering why somebody like billionaire George Soros is so hellbent on defeating the incumbent US president that he and his funds would put up like $26M just to influence the 2004 election against Bush. That’s a lotta green.

Who can say why George and Warren would make such a Big Bet. Surely their real desire is to see a strong US economy, right?

Aug 12, 2004 - 7:48 pm 133. Matthew Cromer:

Hollywood.

You surely aren’t so dumb that you don’t understand the concept of inflation.

The deficits are not *record* when measured in *real dollars*. And the deficits are 80% because the rich got hammered when the Clinton stock bubble collapsed. I’m sure you’re not so ill-informed that you were not aware of this. And you cannot possibly believe that tax cuts are bad for job growth, can you? Come back to the table and say something true next time.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:17 pm 134. Terrye:

Hollywood:

Speaking of the truth outing, it is also true that Dems voted for that tax cut and that without it there probably would not have been a recovery. It is also true that Kerry is feeding people a line of crap about how he can end the deficit and provide universal healthcare and add 40,000 soldiers to the military and save the environment and bring about world peace and whatever else he is lying aobut at the present time. Something along the lines of two trillion dollars in spending.

You know I was working in health care when Clinton was president and I can tell you he did not cut the deficit just by raising taxes, he also cut spending and a lot of the spending was in medicare. My business almost went under in 1997 thanks to Clinton and I had two former clients die after they were dropped from service when the rules were changed. One old lady did not last 6 weeks.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:19 pm 135. Katherine:

ìHello, Bush tax cuts! Reality has caught up. In new jobs. In the economy. In the record breaking deficit.î

Hollywood, honey.

Be kind to explain what do you mean.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:26 pm 136. Terrye:

I would also like to know if Kerry manages to win this with the help of rich friends and his wife’s money can we kick him out if he does not make the twenty million jobs he is promising? Maybe they can manufacture another dot com boom to wipe out the deficit for as long as they are around and just leave the mess for somebody else to clean up. Would not be the first time.

You know if it is all about money I would have to say that I would think guys like Soros could buy somebody better.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:26 pm 137. Knucklehead:

I find numbers so difficult, Hollywood. I mean, like, yaknow, just look at all the numbers in the Historical Tables. Just mind boggling. Just take take the tables in section 15 – pow, man, pow.

And records, like, that’s so, idunno, baseball. Like, how does anyone judge percentages against absolute values? Its just so hard. Like, if you have a company and you have, like, one account that does $10M in business with you and another account that does like, $100K, and you grown the $10M account a stinking little 10% that’s like, a million dollars! But if you grown the $100K account by a stinking $50K that’s like, fifty percent! Wow. Pow, man, pow.

And like, what does stuff cost? Who can figure that out these days. I bought some gas today and it was, like $2/gal. I coulda bought a Snapple and a pack of Tic-Tacs for that $2 but no, I had to buy gas. Thank goodness I had a Snapple at home in the fridge. If you buy that stuff by the case for a good price its only a little more expensive than gas. Good thing my car doesn’t run on Snapple, huh? I guess it would be even worse if it ran on milk. Man, that stuff’s like $3/gal. Freakin’ cows are rippin’ us off man!

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:31 pm 138. Terrye:

Katherine:

According to Greenspan the economy is in good shape. But what the hell does he know?

Considering the fact that Michael Moore explained to all of us that Bush and the Saudis are joined at the hip I can’t for the life of me understand why gas is so high. I thought that once we went to war and stole all of Iraq’s oil and put that pipeline in Afghanistan and everything that we would control the world market on oil and have cheap gas so that Bush could win the election with the help of his oil buddies. Could it be that Moore is full of shit?

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:33 pm 139. Kevin P:

Knucklehead:

Now I know why you chose that name. You just don’t get it. The Billionaires, millionaires, and multi-national corporations that are pouring millions into the Kerry campaign are only doing it for the sake of good government. they only expect Kerry to be a good, sensitive nuanced man.They do not want any influence on the Kerry presidency, and if Kerry was to ask them their opinion, whether or not it would affect their business holdings would never cross their mind.The only time that money effects elections is when Republicans get it. If you don’t believe me, ask Hollywood or doublecola.

This goes for the candidate themselves. When Bush I and Bush II ran there were quite a few articles on how these millionaires were out of touch with the common folk. The press also correctly implied that these nasty Republicans were in the control of their big money donors. And they were right. Now the fact that Kerry married a billionaire and is far more wealthy then the Bushes combined is different. They are Democrats. They are pure. Hey, John Kerry even went to a Wendy’s the other day. Granted, he didn’t eat anything because he had a $200 supper waiting for him in his suite, but that is only $100 each for him and theresa, Why the poor souls are just scrapping by. they are not drinking the $1000 dollar vintages anymore, they are economizing on $300 a bottle california swill, a sign of solidarity with the downtrodden.

In closing, you will rest easy if you just grasp the basic facts of life. Democrats good, republicans evil. Just ask the NY Times.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:37 pm 140. ter0:

Flash

Drudge is reporting that Kerry admits to not having been in Cambodia until January.

Exclusive photo of Kerry’s “Lucky Hat” CIA agent (appears to have a Caddy Shack connection)

LUCKY HAT

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:42 pm 141. Terrye:

I read that Kerry [or rather, the little woman] is worth more than the Bushes and Cheney combined. In fact if he wins this man of the people will be the wealthiest president in our history.

Yep it is nice to know there are regular guys like Kerry and Kennedy and Moore and Soros out there to look after our interests.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:45 pm 142. geoffg:

Re: Waiting 14 months to have your gall bladder removed

I had my gall bladder removed 4 years ago, and my wife had her’s out 3 months ago. Anyone whose has gallstones can tell you that waiting even 6 months for respite might drive one to suicide. The pain is similar to a heart-attack; it begins as heartburn, and you munch antacids ever more frequently, to little effect. But when the gallstones have gained sufficient volume, you begin experiencing a heart-attack like condition 2 or 3 times a week.

What is remarkable about the procedure here in the US, is that it can be performed almost on an outpatient basis. I went in a 9PM and the operation was perfomed at 8:30 next morning. I checked out a little after noon.

I was sore, but I had only 4 small holes in my abdomin (2 about 3/4″ and 2 about 1/2″). I was able to work (somewhat uncomfortably) the next day.

If any of you are suffering from extreme gastric discomfort, you might consider having your GB removed. I can now eat anything and suffer no gastric distress. B^O

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:46 pm 143. Jamie Irons:

Back if I may to Mr. Kerry, and what a lousy candidate he is. With his blathering he is already hurting the war effort, as described in an editorial in the WSJ today:

Even more disturbing, Mr. Kerry is now talking openly about bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. He offered the hint of such a plan during his Boston speech, but now he’s putting a timetable on it, saying he’d begin the drawdown within six months of his inauguration. “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan,” he said this week. This followed his comments last week that “we’re going to get our troops home where they belong.”

Mr. Kerry says he would do this by replacing U.S. troops with foreign ones. But what if that doesn’t happen, regardless of how well he speaks French? The message that will be heard in Baghdad is that Mr. Kerry is planning a date-certain U.S. retreat. Such a pledge only emboldens the Baathist insurgents to fight on, rather than accept Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s offer of amnesty. And it encourages the terrorists to believe that their strategy of car-bombing has worked to weaken U.S. resolve after all.

Even more destructive is the effect Mr. Kerry’s promise could have on ordinary Iraqis. It signals to those who are risking their lives by fighting the insurgents that the U.S. might not stay until stability is restored. It also subverts his promise to secure more international help. What country would want to sign on to Iraq if the U.S. is headed for the exits?

Jamie Irons

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:47 pm 144. Barry Dauphin:

Douglas Brinkley to the rescue. Now it was January, not christmas. He tries to pull a drowning Kerry out of the water. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc93.htm

Maybe Kerry is too busy missing intelligence brieflings to address this himself.

Apparently Christmas arrives late in Cambodia. It must have something to do with the international dateline or whatnot. Yeah, Yeah, it must have been New Year’s-what was I thinking. That’s why all those South Vietnamese were shooting in the air, New year’s not Christmas. Well at least new year’s is in January. Oh maybe they were celebrating Nixon’s innauguration when he said he’d never send troops into Cambodia without super secret hats.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:53 pm 145. Katherine:

January of which year, I wonder.

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:53 pm 146. Knucklehead:

ter0,

So he’s going to stick with a modified Cambodia story, is he? Maybe it was a New Years party where everyone was srinking and shooting at him. I wonder if he ever stopped and wondered why every time he popped his head up everybody on every side of the war was shooting at him. No wonder the guy got 3 Purple Hearts so quick. I bet even the chickens and pigs took pot shots at him.

Kevin P,

Oops, and right after you ’splained everything to me. It was mean-spirited of me to say that stuff above, wasn’t it? I can help myself, I’m just yet another mean-spirited conser… never mind, I can’t say the word now that I understand how nasty and mean-spirited and, well, evil I am. Its also past my bedtime! Nighty-night!

PS – All

Who is cleaning up all the beer cans and mopping the floor before Roger gets home?

Aug 12, 2004 - 8:56 pm 147. ter0:

Knucklehead,

Before you leave, check the Command-Post Israeli jet/Cambodia comments — Zumwalt’s staffer made some more insightful comments.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:01 pm 148. Knucklehead:

So, does this mean Kerry will release all his military records so we know who sent him on his illegal trips into Cambodia?

What’s he hiding? Why doesn’t he release all his records?

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:02 pm 149. Terrye:

I wondered what year too. oh well. Good thing Brinkely is around to tell Kerry where he is and what year it is or the poor man would not be able to find his way to Boston.

Jamie:

I hope that some enterprising journalist ask Kerry the questions posed in that op ed.

It is simple. If you are a terrorist in Iraq you kill people, it hurts Bush’s chances to win, Kerry gets in pulls out the troops and you start building training camps and filling mass graves.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:04 pm 150. ter0:

Didn’t I read that Brinkley had access to Kerry’s journals?

If so, Kerry either lied to him or Brinkley knew the story all along.

Who lies to their diary? Oh, ok… nevermind.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:06 pm 151. Knucklehead:

I saw that article, ter0. In fact I think I linked to it in one of these threads. Hollywood wants to know what kind of boat Kerry says he was on. Kerry was running secret ops into Cambodia – yeah, and I was winning the Heisman Trophy. I have a lucky hat seared on my head from that day.

If’n you axe me, Kerry’s been running that steel hairbrush of his through his incredible hair too vigorously too often for too many years. I can just see the loon sitting in the pilothouse of his PCF counting brush strokes… one-hundred… one-hundred-one…

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:07 pm 152. ter0:

Knucklehead,

You have a Heisman?

Yes, I saw your earlier post and Zumwalt’s guy responded again that the PBRs and Swifts always travelled in pairs for mutual support. Also it only made sense for the PBRs to go anywhere other than main river channels because the Swifts were too large.

I posted specs on both boats at the link.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:13 pm 153. Kevin P:

Jamie:

Of course Kerry knows that there are no replacement soldiers from foreign nations ready or able to replace our troops.Members of the British, German and French governments have been quoted just these last 10 days telling him they are not coming. Kerry doesn’t care. He has talked to his pollers and they have told him that he can’t come out and say that that he plans to cut and run. Unlike Dean, Nader and Kucinich he doesn’t have the integrity to be honest about his plans. So Kerry will continue to claim that he will have the bulk of the troops out in a year, that if the Army needs more troops he will send them, and that he will get the UN to send troops to replace ours.He doesn’t need to make sense, he just needs to say anything to everyone at anytime to win.

To the anti-war crowd he says, Our troops will be home in a year. To the few remaing democratic hawks he says he will prosecute the war to a conclusion. He claims he can get the foreign governments to send more troops even as they are saying they won’t.This follows his “I voted for it before I voted against it” Or his I was inside Cambodia at Christmas, er I was near Cambodia at Christmas, er I was in Cambodia in January, to be continued. I agree it is not fair to call Kerry a flip flopper. I think doublespeaker or B**lsh***er is more accurate.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:30 pm 154. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Terrye

Your doctor may have left becauses of malpractice insurance costs. He may have needed to be in a city where he could charge enough to cover it.

I have a friend who is an OB/GYN. She and others used to put on charity clinics out on the Indian Reservations. She had to stop because of the malpractice risk. One can ask Edwards about that, since apparently the main source of his wealth was shaking down OB’s. There’s a lot of money in defective babies – real damages are lifetime care, plus emotional factors. Since bad babies aren’t unusual with good care, it’s a regular money machine for lawyers.

As to Kerry’s plans, they are too complex to analyze without a lot of work. A important principle, rarely undertaken for social plans proposed by the left, is dynamic analysis – in other words, what will the actions of the various players change to under the new rules.

On the surface, it has some reasonable provisions, although the attempt to lower drug prices is silly. For example, they call for disallowing the practice of re-extending patents by tricks. Logically, this makes sense. But dynamically, it just means the drug companies will have to make the same money by increasing the price of other medications. This is an example of missing dynamic analysis. If we want newer, better drugs and related items (stem cell magic if doable), we have to let the companies make money or they won’t do it. People say they spend too much on marketing, but the medical profession is very stubborn (which is also why it is grossly underautomated).

There is a program there that presumably would help people denied insurance for medical reasons: allowing them to buy into the federal employees system. But there’s a gotcha in his proposal most people won’t understand: people using this provision would buy into a separate risk pool. Since we are talking high risk people, this means that the premiums will be very high.

It is a basic fact that medical insurance requires a generational transfer. Young, healthy people pay premiums that go for older, less healthy people. That’s just a fact of human health. This is one reason that corporate insurance works – the workers inherently create a risk pool with appropriate statistics – enough healthy young people paying the same rate as old folks like me.

One way to do this is to force everyone to have insurance (with suitable financial aid where needed), and to force all insurance to take everyone.

There are a lot of ways to game such a system ( what is “insurance?”), and that’s true of almost any government system.

I had COBRA from my previous job (takeover led to firing of existing executives), and worked as a consultant for the 18 months. Then I had a choice of jumping through the right hoops and getting Blue Cross at a high premium, or get a job. So I got a job in the health payments industry (ironic, eh?).

Finally, I have declared myself to be a social conservative. But labels aren’t perfect. I am in favor (selfishness?) of health insurance for all (especially since we have medical care for all – it’s just wrong the way some of it is paid for – such as my friend who had to pay his entire $500,000 net worth for care, and then get SSI to pay for his life and provide medicare.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:33 pm 155. Stephen_M:

Yoiks! NYT on Oil for Food.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:36 pm 156. ter0:

Captain Ed says it’s January because that’s when Gardner left (he was the only one on the boat who now opposes Kerry).

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:38 pm 157. WichitaBoy:

PeterUK

Yes, you are definitely right that for a lot of Democrats (read: the Clintonistas) there’s no real desire to win the election this time around. Far better to let the incredibly weak candidate Kerry blow it and spatter more mud on the Republicans in the process, allowing white lady Hillary to come riding to the rescue. There’s no doubt in my mind that that’s part of what’s going on.

There’s another side to the story this year, though, one that I’ve never quite seen before. There’s incredible Bush hatred. It has nothing to do with Bush that I can see. Not him personally. A lot of people are just furious. Furious! They really don’t care who runs against Bush, they really would vote for the Devil himself. Soros would support him; Michael Moore would make a movie for him. So that side of the Democratic party definitely wants to win.

I don’t quite understand this sentiment. Hollywood gave an indication when he raised the health care issue, but I really don’t think that has anything to do with it. Kerry won’t nationalize health care any more than Bush would. In fact, with the single exception of what to do in Iraq and thereafter, there really isn’t all that much difference between the stated policies of the two men. There is of course a lot of allowing their supporters to see what they want to see on both sides, but I see very little verifiable difference there.

The main difference is that Kerry is an isolationist who wants to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible whereas Bush wants to continue to take the war to the terrorists, presumably in Iraq or Syria next.

What’s astonishing is the incredible support Kerry has among the true believers and the incredible anger they have mustered toward Bush. I’m virtually certain the Clintonistas weren’t expecting this.

Aug 12, 2004 - 9:45 pm 158. ed:

Hmmm.

Ok. I got my copy of “Unfit for Command” at the office today but didn’t get a chance to read it until 8pm or so. Took me a couple hours to read it and another hour to reread selected portions of it.

HOLY F**K!!

Please excuse the language but I’ve never read anything more damning in my life. If these guys aren’t telling the truth then they’re in for the libel/slander/defamation suit of the century.

The book is only 200+ pages so it’s not a hard read, but it’s riveting. You get guided through every aspect of Kerry’s Vietnam service and it’s unreal. There are several points that should be considered.

1. Nobody liked Kerry or trusted him. Many of the officers in the SWIFT boats requested that they never go on missions with Kerry.

2. Kerry had an intense fantasy life where he was a John Wayne style hero confronting his superior officers about supposed issues. Instead he was a suck-up in real life. He was only the hero in his journals, which is the basis of his many biographies.

3. Kerry was unreliable. He would often “disappear” for long stretches of time from patrol. On one patrol, only 7 miles from Saigon, he actually deserted his post by taking his boat into Saigon for a night of drinking. He was also prone to firing without warning and exercised poor, or non-existant, fire discipline.

4. Kerry lied like a rug. He changed scenarios, times, situations and reports in order to gain medals. The action in which he won the Silver Star was actually completetly contrived. The night before the mission Kerry talked to his crew and the crews of two other boats. The basis of this “talk” was to convince them that, upon recieving fire, they would beach their boats and charge the enemy. The reason for this was to garner medals. What’s more interesting is that each boat carried around 10 SVA soldiers who did the bulk of the fighting, and yet they weren’t even mentioned in the citation.

5. Kerry didn’t just think of the “3 Purple Hearts and you go home” routine himself. He was asked, or told to rather, to use this clause and get the hell out of Vietnam. The other SWIFT boat officers didn’t want him anywhere near them anymore because he was such a liability.

6. Kerry, according to this book, was a physical coward who bitched about any level of danger and who either hung back or RAN the moment there was any danger. As an example Kerry spent only a week at An Thoi, a dangerous posting, because he bitched so much nobody wanted him around. So he got transferred to a much less dangerous post.

This literally goes on and on and on.

I didn’t serve in the USN but I do a term in the USMC (starting in 1982, medical discharge in 1984) and I think I would have shot Kerry if he had done any of this crap to me or my buddies.

It’s one thing to be a glory hound medal hunting bastard. It’s another thing to leave wounded comrades to die by running away.

One thing is for certain. Someone is going to pay a heavy price for this book. Either it’s the Swiftees, if they’re lying. Or it’s Kerry, if they aren’t lying. Or it’s the liberal media, once enough people have read this book.

Sooner or later there’s going to be an accounting.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:04 pm 159. ed:

Hmmm.

“Captain Ed says it’s January because that’s when Gardner left (he was the only one on the boat who now opposes Kerry).”

According to Unfit for Command, Kerry has never been in Cambodia during Vietnam. In fact I don’t even know if Kerry has ever been in Cambodia since Vietnam.

I think many of the objections that were raised initially might still apply. I.e. PBR’s were used more because they were smaller, more maneuverable. The SWIFT boats had a tendency to get fubar’d on sandbars on a regular basis, which I assume would be a smaller problem on a boat with a much shallower draft.

Still Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia for any reason. If he did go there, then he violated his orders and deserted his post. In order for Kerry to be at all credible on this issue he’ll have to give date, time and mission particulars. If they don’t jive, then expect a challenge from the Swiftees.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:11 pm 160. penwil:

Every single time Kerry told this story–which was often–he specifically said that it was on Christmas Eve. He’s on record over and over as saying it was Christmas Eve. Does he really expect us to believe that he’s been saying Christmas Eve for thirty years, but what he really meant was January? Uh huh, I’ve always had trouble keeping Christmas Eve and days in January separate in my mind. Oh, yeah, and he supposedly dropped off “US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.” A regular little ferry service he had going there. And who knew Cambodia was so crawling with spies in December of ‘68, er . . . Januray of ‘69?

This is treating us voters like we are either idiots or children. It’s insulting.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:11 pm 161. richard mcenroe:

PeterUK ó Roland the Hatless Thompson Gunner?

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:21 pm 162. Fresh Air:

Ed–

Great post! I can’t wait to read it. Sounds like the Swiftees tossed a grenade in the lap of the Kerry Campaign.

Penwil, Jamie–

Steve Gardner was quoted on NRO as saying there were concrete pilings in place on the Mekong(?) River leading into Cambodia. Even if you slipped past the U.S.N. patrols, you would still have to get over the pilings, which were set at a height so that only sampans at high tide could get through. The draft of a Swift boat would obviously preclude an incursion.

Of course, Kerry may also have been able to suspend physics or use his CIA-provided inflatable hovercraft. Or perhaps his special hat gave him incredible powers of buoyancy.

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:36 pm 163. Charlie (Colorado):

The WOT is a poisoned chalice for the incumbent,….

Is it the chalice with the palace?

Aug 12, 2004 - 10:38 pm 164. ter0:

Again with the hat.

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed “black” missions there at the height of the war.

He said: “Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.” The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

“He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn’t use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off.”

U.K. Telegraph

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:02 pm 165. Katherine:

> He would often “disappear” for long stretches of time from patrol. On one patrol, only 7 miles from Saigon, he actually deserted his post by taking his boat into Saigon for a night of drinking.

And there you have a solution to the ìChristmas or some-other-time-yet-to-be-established in Cambodiaî story:

Poor bugger got so stinking drunk and/or stoned (bad mushrooms?) that he hallucinated entire new version of his Vietnam service. The damage to his brain was apparently so severe that even now he cannot distinguish between his fantasies and objective reality.

There is a bunch of doctors here: can condition like that be cured?

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:05 pm 166. ed:

Hmmm.

Does any reporter realise that a SWIFT boat is 50 feet long? That the only advantage of a SWIFT boat over a PBR is that it has more firepower? That it’s disadvantages include being more noisy, a much deeper draft and being a much bigger target?

also….

I wouldn’t characterize the book as a “grenade”. It’s far far worse than that. It’s more like a white phosphorous artillery round in the lap.

There are really some extremely serious allegations made in that book. If it wouldn’t be so political I could easily see the JAG opening an official investigation into these allegations.

I’m talking hard labor kind of stuff.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:07 pm 167. Katherine:

ìHe had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.î

All of whom conveniently died, of course, so they cannot be reached for comments.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:10 pm 168. Katherine:

Does any reporter realise that a SWIFT boat is 50 feet long?

Ed, for reporters SWIFT boat mean fast, small, agile craft, like an dinghy, otherwise it would not be called a ìswiftî boat, would it.

Besides, looking up technical information interferes with the creative side of a writer. Reporters are artists too, you know.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:22 pm 169. penwil:

President and Mrs. Bush were interviewed on Larry King tonight, and one of the questions King asked was on the swiftboat ad. Bush said he hadn’t seen the ad and so couldn’t comment on it and then segued into a condemnation of all 527s. He ended by saying Kerry should be proud of his service to his country, as he (Bush) was proud.

My point is that while the NYT and WaPo are basically ignoring the story, the cable news channels haven’t been. (I believe O’Neil was on Crossfire and Hardball today). And now if the book is as explosive as it sounds, it’s simply too scandalous not to spread like wildfire. It’s going to be very interesting to see now how this all plays out. If these swiftboat vet charges are true, Kerry really is unfit to be president on character alone.

Bush, btw, did quite well throughout the entire interview, which was an hour long and covered everything from the “Mission Accomplished” sign, to Iraq to stem cell research to wearing his faith on his sleeve, and I don’t think he fumbled once. He came across as sincere, confident, tough, principled and yet also humbled by the task that history has entrusted to him to protect this country today and make the world safe for future generations. I think he’s going to be impressive in the debates.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:31 pm 170. richard mcenroe:

Charlie (Colorado) ó I replied to your Seaton & Crane post down in the “new day job” thread. Quit skylarking on the board…

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:32 pm 171. Fresh Air:

All of whom conveniently died, of course, so they cannot be reached for comments.

By any chance was Vince Foster on Kerry’s boat?

In all seriousness, doesn’t this whole story remind you of childhood? You would invent a story about a vacant house being haunted and creep by in the light of the full moon, giggling nervously and hoping the resident ghost didn’t appear. You even invented a whole rationale for why the house was haunted. Somebody was murdered on the premises and was still trying to get revenge. You almost convinced yourself the story was true. Then one day you turned 12 and just forgot about it. It was just some old house nobody lived in, and the windows made good target practice for your BB gun.

Kerry is the man from “Big.” The man who never grew up.

And he wants to be president. No wonder he joined Skull & Bones.

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:35 pm 172. richard mcenroe:

Ed ó Actually, a Swift boat and a PBR have about the same firepower. The difference is that a PBR is much better suited to river combat than the coastal-oriented PBR… the same firepower in a smaller, more maneuverable package…

Aug 12, 2004 - 11:35 pm 173. Charlie (Colorado):

Hello, Bush tax cuts! Reality has caught up. In new jobs. In the economy. In the record breaking deficit.

Hollywood, one of the annoying things about these talking points things is the number of them that simply aren’t actually true.

Measured in terms of the number of people employed, more people are employed today than ever before, and the current unemployment rate is as low as it was at the end of the first Clinton administration; the4re are severaltheories around about what lead to the low unemployment in Clinton II, but since it was a general bubble, there’s some reason to doubt the numbers were realistic.

The supposedly bad economy is actually growing at a fairly historic rate, after an extremely mild recession.

The supposed “record breaking deficit” is only record-breaking if you ignore sensible measures: either in constant dollars, or in terms of percentage of GDP, the deficit is pretty normal. So call it “record breaking” if you like, but the numerate will know that you don’t break real deficit records by counting inflated dollars any more than I get taller when I say that I’m 190 centimeters tall instead of 75 inches.

All of these are quantitative statements that can be quantitatively evaluated, and fancy argument won’t change that.

Similarly, you can say “Halliburton” over and over again, but it won’t change the fact that the contract in effect was let competititvely, and during the Clinton Administration; that Cheney doesn’t get any more money if Halliburton gets a new contract — all he receives is deferred compensation, and if Halliburton grew bigger than Exxon, or went bankrupt, the money Cheney gets would not change; or, for that matter, that Halliburton is losing its shorts in Iraq.

Hell, as far as that goes, it was a real turkey — if tricked out to look better than the ones that had been carved for the steam tables — and it was served at suppertime, not six AM.

Again, these are facts that can easily be confirmed. What’s more, if you listen carefully, you find that no one ever tries to defend the accusations on the basis of factual argument; they just become shibboleths to identify which side you’re on.

You’re clearly intelligent, and of some wit. Why let yourself be dragged down by this kind of ignorance?

Oh, and by the way, as far as deficits go — a very little mathematical analysis will show you that so long as the rate of growth of expenditures is less than the rate of growth of revenues, any deficit (and any debt) will eventually go away.

On the other hand, so long as the rate of growth of expenditures is greater than the rate of growth of revenues, you will always have deficits unto bankruptcy.

Notice that these statements are true whether or not you cut taxes, or raise them. It takes a little bit fancier mathematics — a tiny bit of first-year calculus helps here — to show that if the rate of growth of expenditures is greater than the rate of growth of the economy, no tax increase will prevent eventual bankruptcy.

Playing let’s pretend won’t change it.

Aug 13, 2004 - 12:07 am 174. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

ed

It’s not fair. I know one of the authors and knew the book was in progress for some time, and YOU get a copy first. Sigh.

Let us remember that one of the authors, O’Neil, is a very well respected, very senior lawyer. I don’t think he has any intention of paying a libel settlement. In other words, the book, minus a minor detail or two possibly, is probably very accurate. It also shows why such an unprecedented agreement among all of Kerry’s officers exists and why they were willing to submit themselves to the inevitable characters attacks in order to bring out the facts on Kerry. After seeing Clinton’s attack machine, I doubt these guys were under illusions as to what would be done to them by the left.

The behavior you describe is consistent with a sociopath, which is also the opinion of one of the swifties – smart, impulsive, untruthful, self-absorbed, opportunistic, willing to kill too easily. This makes Kerry a very, very frightening guy. It would be like electing Ted Bundy.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:17 am 175. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Two more comments:

SWIFT is an acronym. Don’t remember what for.

The comment about Bush hatred is right on the mark. I don’t understand the phenomenon even in the people I see it in. It is amazing and bizarre.

I assume some is from Democrats who consider the election to have been stolen. I suspect a bunch more is from the increasingly radical media and the constant current of lies and innuendo about Bush that they have fed the country. But it is a scary phenomenon.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:23 am 176. Cain:

Hello everyone:

Forgive me, but I do have a few questions, a couple I poached from the New Republic article cited above by Hollywood:

1) Why didn’t any Swift Boat commanders report Kerry’s various indescretions immediately after their service? Could it be that they did not really have much beef with Kerry until he began opposing the war so publicly? If these claims were indeed levied against Kerry, and were irrefutable, then I doubt his anti-war legitimacy would have been severely compromised.

2) Again, why did no one raise this issue when Kerry first launch his political career as Lieutenant Gov.?

3) Why didn’t these men intervene in the tighty contested 1996 US Senate race between Kerry and William Weld? In fact, at least one of the very men who opposes him now defended Kerry during his last high-profile campaign.

So these are my questions. Feel free to respond to them, I’d appreciate it. If someone can come up with logical explanations, then that’s fine. I’ll take it into consideration.

Otherwise, I can’t really trust these Swift Boat men. They must feel the opportunity to influence a Presidential Election is too great to pass up.

Personally, I feel that Bush should continue staying out of this. In a comparison of their past histories, Kerry still looks better than Bush, and polls show that any association between “Kerry” and “Vietnam” adds to his favorability rating.

At best for Bush, each man’s past cancels the other out. Where Kerry is especially vulnerable is his position on the Iraq war, which becomes more and more muddled each time he discusses it.

Bush understands this, which is why, in my opinion, he’ll have little trouble winning this election.

And a point about the media: a common thread among virtually every commentator in this space is that the media is biased. Of course it is. Get over it. If you find that the newspaper you read doesn’t report the news you think it should, then find a new newspaper. Same goes for a television network.

In the information age there exist sufficient news sources that satisfy just about every possible ideology. Nobody should feel like they’re being shut out.

Many of you, I wager, have decided to support President Bush over Senator Kerry in this election. So you tend to view news that’s favorable to Bush as more or less accurate and news that’s favorable to Kerry as more or less biased. Of course, the same goes for those that support Kerry. Why such consternation?

(Don’t think I exclude myself. I mostly read and watch things that confirm my own suspicions and beliefs).

One last note: Dennis the Peasant, I know you enjoy the rigorous debate that ensues in this space. But please stop whining about people who express dissenting opinions. Leave the managing duties to Roger.

peace

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:27 am 177. Cain:

On Bush hatred:

Bush, like Clinton, is a skilled politician who knows that he isn’t going to get everyone to like him. And there’s little difference between people who absolutely hate you and the people who merely dislike you.

Bush is loyal to his base, and he isn’t about to jeopardize any support from it to appeal to people whose vote he probably doesn’t need.

It’s been said that it’s much better to be hated than pitied. Can you think of less likely object of pity than President Bush?

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:36 am 178. Sandy P:

Or, Cain,

Nam is unfinished business in this country, it’s been a pall over us for the past 30 years.

They want it settled.

We are at war, they don’t think he’s fit for the job.

And it’s not really easy to find that paper or TV as you suggest we do.

–) Why didn’t these men intervene in the tighty contested 1996 US Senate race between Kerry and William Weld? In fact, at least one of the very men who opposes him now defended Kerry during his last high-profile campaign.–

Because he was only running for Senate a

1 out of 100 group????

Were you around in the late 60s and early 70s, cognizant enough to know what was going on?

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:39 am 179. ambisinistral:

Cain,

Well, who knows what their motives were at any given time. Basically, that is an unanswerable red herring… er, I mean question.

The factuality of what they allege can be determined to a fairer degree of certainty if he releases his service records.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:24 am 180. M. Simon:

Katherine asks:

“There is a bunch of doctors here: can condition like that be cured?”

I’m no doctor, but I play one with my wife. It is my opionion that after 30+ years the disease has progressed so far that it is fatal.

Simon

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:25 am 181. M. Simon:

BTW Roger,

It reminds me of a flight i had out of Knoxville once where I wound up sleeping with 50 women. On the floor of the Knoxville Airport. There were qite a number of men there as well so it wasn’t an unalloyed pleasure.

John Kerry is no liar. I believe his 1971 Senate testimony when he said he committed war crimes.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release the records.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:29 am 182. M. Simon:

Cain,

Let me tell you.

You have no idea of the xray level of heat of the Nam vets. Bush hatred is dull red by comparison.

Here is my take on the Kerry “Service” to this country.

John Kerry told us cut and run was the right thing to do in Vietnam. Three million died. He is propposing withdrawal from Iraq.

I suppose three million was not enough.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release the records.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:37 am 183. M. Simon:

John Moore,

It is my hope that when my time comes and I can’t afford to pay the bills my doctors and familiy will have the courtesy of letting me go quietly in as little pain as possible.

Unlimited health care is a prescription for unlimited costs.

It is as you pointed out a tax on the young.

Better we let them invest the money so they will have something for their old age.

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:30 am 184. jerry:

Cain:

Let me answer you question about why Kerry’s mates didn’t start talking about him until recently.

When he left the unit he was just another JO of no particular importance. Why would they raise a big stink about him to anyone? That’s not how the military works. You get your “fair winds and following seas” departure and move on. It was only when he came home and did his VVAW thing that he began to attract attention, e.g., John O’Neil.

The reason that nobody brought this up before is that he always ran as an anti-war/pro-Soviet candidate. It was only when he became John Kerry, the hero with a chest full of medals, that his contemporaries came forward to refute the assertion. If Kerry stayed true to his anti-war/pro-Saddam character the SWIFT boat veterans would not fell it necessary to run the ad.

.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:34 am 185. Knucklehead:

Cain,

Since I cannot believe that you have such shallow understanding of human nature and/or the military (or any other large organization) that you actually need answers to the questions you asked, I’ll just toss a question back at you:

Why is it so difficult for Kerry supporters to understand that the people who served with Kerry, and those he slandered, might not have noticed or cared much when he was a state Lt. Gov or one of 100 US Senators but now can’t help noticing and care very much now that the man wants to be Commander in Chief of all United States Armed Forces? You aren’t really dense enough to not understand the magnitude of the difference in both visibility and function of the positions, are you?

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:19 am 186. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

Your talking to a modified Moby memebot.

“Otherwise, I can’t really trust these Swift Boat men. They must feel the opportunity to influence a Presidential Election is too great to pass up.”

Widdle Cain tells big bad Dennis to please lay off because he’s not the blog owner. I’m not the blog owner either but I know a damn troll when I see one. If Roger doesn’t want trolls nailed, I can assure everyone here that I have no doubts concerning his ability to make that point.

Put as much lipstick on as you’d like Cain, you’re still a troll.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:03 am 187. Knucklehead:

I’m calmed down a bit now. Perhaps Cain doesn’t have much experience or is not inclined to consider what makes people do the things they do. So I’ll just toss up a couple real-life examples that might help to illustrate something about why people do things at one point in life when they didn’t do the same thing earlier in life. Both relate to friends who decided to run for a postion on their local Board of Education (each won their seat although that is not important to the examples).

One day I bumped into a guy I’ve known for years at a local convenience store. Hadn’t seen him in a while so naturally I asked about the family and such. After a few moments he mentioned that he was running in next Board of Ed election and would I vote for him. Me being me, I asked why he wanted to be on the Board of Ed. He proceeded to explain that the Board of Ed was all screwed up, mentioned some examples, but quickly came to the point of why, now, things reached the stage where he was finally compelled to feel that he needed to get of his arse and get personally involved. And that was the fact that the Board of Ed had recently hired a new school super for the district and he had professional knowledge of the guy from his job as a municipal auditor and, well, hiring the guy to be the super for our schools was not a smart thing to do and might well be a downright corrupt thing to do.

The other example is the sort of old friend one doesn’t see or speak to for years on end who happened to be in the area so we got together to catch up. He mentioned that he was on his town’s Board of Ed and, me being me, I asked him why he wanted to do suffer that sort of headache and aggravation. And he, just like my other friend, proceeded to explain why he had reached the point of getting off his arse and getting personally involved. In this case he had experienced some small issue with one of his kids in the local HS and, while dealing with that, had discovered that the local Board of Ed regulations defined the “chain of command/route of appeal” as principal to super to chairman of the BoE and allowed one person to hold all of those positions (very small town and small school system). Anyone who understands organization (and this guy does) realizes that this is a recipe for screwups regardless of the good intentions and honesty of the person holding the position. And when he started going around talking to the BoE members he quickly realized that none of them fully understood the nature of the problem. So he ran, got elected, and worked to rewrite the regs to take into account the fact that the school system was so small that regs which made sense for larger systems made no sense for such a small system.

People go through their lives sometimes unaware of distant things they might not like if they knew about or are not important enough to their situation to take on any additional trouble or effort. Yet when they become aware of a certain thing, or it touches their life closely enough, they decide its time to get personally involved.

The fact that the SwiftVets are coming forward now does not seem the least bit inconsistent with my experience of human nature. It is not the least bit odd to me that O’Neill or any of the other Swiftvets would have put aside their knowledge of, and feelings toward, John Kerry while they got on with their lives and he was nothing more than Lt. Gov or Senator for the Great State of MA and then decided, many years later, that now that Kerry is running for POTUS that it is time to get personally involved and take a stand. This is especially true if they honestly believe that Kerry Lied and People Died. If they don’t stand up and do what they can to keep him out of the postion of POTUS then they will be complicit if he repeats his previous self-serving and destructive actions.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:06 am 188. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

Good, well reasoned response.

Edmund Burke said it in a more succinct manner:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Cain’s claim of base motivation on the part of the men willing to stand up and tell the truth at what will be a high personal cost tells me a great deal about his character. None of it good.

No more pixels for him.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:32 am 189. Knucklehead:

Rick Ballard,

I understand your point. Sometimes I feel that you just gotta try and even if Cain is nothing more than a memebot, there is the small chance that some person of honesty who is just beginning to wonder about Kerry and this Swiftvets thing has wandered in with some similar, not yet half-baked, questions.

I suppose it is similar to an honest person wondering how the heck it matters what sort of boat Kerry commanded. Well, it matters.

There are differences between a SWIFT (Shallow Water, Inland, Fast, Tactical), also known as a PCF (Patrol Craft, Fast) and a PBR (Patrol Boat, River). PCFs were modified “water taxis” (50ft in length) brought in by the Navy to work coastal patrols and then retasked to patrol the deeper portions of rivers (which tend to be the portions nearer the coast). They were spec’d to operate independantly for 400 or 500 mile coastal patrols but, when shifted to “inland” duty apparently rarely, if ever, operated independently. This makes a great deal of sense when one stops to think about the nature of rivers and the relative size of boats and the type of armaments.

PBRs were smaller, faster, shallower draft boats which could operate effectively further upstream than PCFs ever could. They were also slightly better armed for close in fighting.

Different sizes of boats serve different performance characteristics and purposes and have different strengths and weaknesses.

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that PCFs were sent to cross the river border into Cambodia? Is there any evidence that Kerry ever commanded a PBR or smaller craft that would be a more likely candidate to be ferrying clandestine specops people into Cambodia? As Ter0 pointed out, one of Zumwalt’s staff members, over at Command Post, see above for link – during the time Kerry was in Vietnam put up a very detailed and professional explanation of the types of incursions into Cambodia, the types of boats used and why, and why it is unlikely that Kerry was involved with any of them.

Apparently logic and logistics, however, are dismissed as valid topics for some people who would prefer that a certain fantasy not be exposed.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:33 am 190. ed:

Hmmm.

1. “Ed ó Actually, a Swift boat and a PBR have about the same firepower.”

I’ll have to look up the specifications. I thought the SWIFT boat had a couple more machine guns than a PBR.

2. “It’s not fair. I know one of the authors and knew the book was in progress for some time, and YOU get a copy first. Sigh.”

Sorry. No idea why I got it so fast. Surprised the heck out of me because I only ordered the book last week. So it couldn’t be because of an early pre-order. *shrug* Maybe God smiles on me. :)

3. “Why didn’t any Swift Boat commanders report Kerry’s various indescretions immediately after their service?”

Because Kerry hid most of his actions. He either fabricated or doctored paperwork, which is the lifeblood of any military. He also was pretty good with issues of timing. An example was his first Purple Heart. He was initially refused by his commanding officer. So he waited until his CO was transferred to another command and then resubmitted the paperwork.

According to the book nobody knew what Kerry had done until after 1996. Nobody knew that Kerry had completely altered a real incident, the underwater mine explosion that crippled PCF3, into an episode of Kerry’s heroism that resulted in a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Which, from the book, he didn’t deserve either of them.

I think Kerry banked on the fact that there were continual transfers going on. Boats were moved from Division to Division and personnel were transferred in and out of the SWIFT boats.

4. ” Why didn’t these men intervene in the tighty contested 1996 US Senate race between Kerry and William Weld?”

Again the book delves into this in great detail. It wasn’t until after 1996, when Kerry’s Tour of Duty came out (I think), that a lot of dots started getting connected. When the Swiftees started to realise that Kerry had fabricated an enormous portion of his “biography” and misappropriated other people’s heroism for himself, that was the last straw.

If you’re hoping that this is somehow a defense for Kerry, it’s not. Seriously. If Kerry has to depend on the fact that his fabrications weren’t discovered by fellow SWIFT boat veterans until after 1996, then he’s doomed.

Don’t get me wrong. Perhaps there is an explanation. Perhaps there is a defense. But, from what I’ve read and seen on TV interviews, it’ll be a cold day in Hell before Kerry is willing to be deposed. So suing them is pretty much out of the question. The only real way I can see that Kerry could effectively defend himself, aside from the partisanship of the major media, is by releasing ALL of his records.

The problem is that if those records come even close to matching the book, he’s doomed.

What’s really amusing is that quite of bit of Kerry’s own various articles and biographies are used to refute him. It’s an old principle, that I learned as a child, that if you’re going to lie then give a simple lie and never embellish. Kerry’s problem is that he’s been lying for about 35 years now and has had the time to embellish so much that’s probably forgotten what was a lie and what was truth. Once you hit that stage then you can, and do, sometimes tell the truth even when you don’t really want to.

The one thing I would suggest is that when you read the book that you constantly refer to the footnotes. They add an enormous amount of detail at times that definitely is useful.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:39 am 191. Charlie (Colorado):

Cain –

I haven’t gotten the book yet, but it appears the answers to your questions are:

Why didn’t any Swift Boat commanders report Kerry’s various indescretions immediately after their service?

Because Kerry was just some generic asshole then.

Could it be that they did not really have much beef with Kerry until he began opposing the war so publicly?

Yes. Your point?

If these claims were indeed levied against Kerry, and were irrefutable, then I doubt his anti-war legitimacy would have been severely compromised.

I suspect that this sentence doesn’t say what you thought you were writing when you wrote it, but I agree with it: I do doubt his anti-war legitimacy would have been much affected. Hell, at least Kerry had actually been there. A lot of the “Winter Soldier” guys hadn’t even been to Viet Nam.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:39 am 192. Knucklehead:

For those interested, here is what, to me, seems to be the “money graph” from the Command Post discussion:

Iíd have to say that his chances of being in Cambodia on any actual mission (covert or otherwise) were essentially nil. Could he have strayed into Cambodia by accident? Well, at the time (xmas ë68) he was supposedly around Sa Dec, which is one one of the main channels of the Mekong River. Going straight up the river, he would have run into the forces (on both sides) guarding the border. It would have been possible to get up there un-noticed by sneaking up one of the smaller rivers or creeks, but that would have been unusual for a Swiftboat to do. Because of their size, Swifts were usually employed in the larger canals and rivers. Another point that I havenít seen anyone bring up yet is that (despite Apocalypse Now) PBRs and Swiftboats almost always traveled in at least pairs for mutual support. If Kerry was in Cambodia, what other boat(s) were with him?

Now try and imagine yourself a Navy SEAL or CIA operative who needs to get into Cambodia and, presumably, back out alive. Even if, as per Apocalypse Now (which featured a PBR, BTW), you would go to your local US Navy rivercraft depot looking for a craft, crew, and boat commander to take you in, do you think you’d be likely to request or settle for a guy that apparently hardly anybody liked, had a reputation as a loose cannon with a burr up his butt, and had something less than 4 months patrolling the deeper portions of the rivers. If you needed somebody to take you by small craft through the maze of tributaries and canals that skirted the well guarded border, wouldn’t you want a more experienced commander and crew from a smaller boat? Just asking.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:52 am 193. DennisThePeasant:

One last note: Dennis the Peasant, I know you enjoy the rigorous debate that ensues in this space. But please stop whining about people who express dissenting opinions. Leave the managing duties to Roger.

peace

Cain-

You missed the point of my quote and the context of its’ use in my critique. I was not telling Hollywood to leave. As you note, I am not the blog owner or site administrator, and to suggest someone leave would be inappropriate. And being inappropriate isn’t what I’m about. What I was saying, based on the totality of her/his postings, was that it appeared Hollywood was about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

It wasn’t about dissenting views, it was about being stupid.

Hope that clears this up for you and setting your mind at ease regarding my totalitarian instincts.

And by the way…

Peace? My ass.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:56 am 194. Knucklehead:

Ed,

I could have this wrong, or it could be a matter of which “mark” the PCF and or PBR was, but in a short-duration small arms, up close and personal, firefight, one might prefer a PBR.

If I have this correct the main armament on the PFC was a dual .50 cal and and over-under contraption that was a combination .50 cal and 81mm “mortar” that was adapted to be trigger fired and capable of relatively short range direct fire (mortars are normally indirect fire weapons). And, of course, there would always be whatever small arms the crew and passengers carried.

Again, IIRC, PBRs had a pair of dual .50 cals and a pair of .30 cal machine guns. And, of course, whatever personal weapons the crew and passengers carried.

The PCF is a bit more “standoffish” than a PBR. To put a lot of lead on a nearby bank of a river or canal in a big hurry, one might prefer a PBR. The narrower and shallower the water the more, it seems to me, the PBR becomes preferrable since not only will it put down a bit more lead for at least a short period of time, but it will turn faster and get the heck outta Dodge City sooner.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:03 am 195. ricpic:

Having just read through much of this thread I just want to say that there is no site like this site on the internet.

I am continually amazed at the quality of the posters here.

As an outsider, I just wanted to thank the insiders (the regulars), and, of course, thank Roger for making it all possible in the first place.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:10 am 196. Roberts:

I missed the part where the pro-Kerry trolls explained to us why one should believe that Kerry has any credibility left.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:11 am 197. Knucklehead:

Roberts,

In addition to what you said, I’d like to hear from some Kerry supporter why they find Rassman more convincing than Gardner. Rassman apparently spent a total of 2 days onboard with Kerry as commander and was a passenger rather than a crewman. Gardner apparently spent a month or more as part of Kerry’s crew and was the gunner on the twin .50 cal station which is above and behind the commander’s position (i.e, nearly the perfect position from which to observe the behavior of one’s commander).

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:31 am 198. ed:

Hmmm.

“In addition to what you said, I’d like to hear from some Kerry supporter why they find Rassman more convincing than Gardner.”

Actually Rassman might have some serious credibility problems himself. Specifically Rassman was with Kerry when he, and Rassman, tried to destroy a VC rice cache by using grenades. Rassman ducked quickly enough to escape unscathed. Kerry ended up being “covered with rice” and having rice embedded in his ass from the explosion.

Note: As a person of Asian extract who has eaten rice almost every day of his life I should warn people that using grenades is not an efficient way to destroy rice. It’s easier to dump it in muddy water, which will ruin it, or just pour some gasoline on it and set it on fire. Using a grenade, regardless of what type, just creates fragments.

So Rassman must know, from his personal experience, that Kerry’s 3rd Purple Heart is completely false.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:54 am 199. Goof®:

I still don’t care.

81 days to go.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:56 am 200. Fresh Air:

Cain–

Otherwise, I can’t really trust these Swift Boat men. They must feel the opportunity to influence a Presidential Election is too great to pass up.

This statement is the reason why people on the left and right talk past each other. For the Swiftees it’s all personal; for the Democrats it’s all political.

Knuckle–

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that PCFs were sent to cross the river border into Cambodia?

Yes. In the spring of 1970–after Kerry had gone home.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:59 am 201. John Lynch:

All

While MekongGate wends its way through the MSM filters, other points of the Kerry credibility and policy-waffling machine should be examined.

Yesterday’s analysis of Kerry (Version I and II) spending proposals have come out as a budget impact statement

We still haven’t a good summary of his 20 years in the senate.

He seems trapped by his left and more center on how to handle the War on Islamic Fascism (no more WoT for me)

He continues to support the U.N. but much quieter now.

These things also are not making it in the MSM.

I think over the past few months, President Bush has been subject to just about every attack, and bad real world events, and has weathered them with poll data. I wonder if any covered attacks on any of the above subject — or more — would have Kerry standing anywhere near where he is now in the polls.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:03 am 202. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air,

Maybe a progressive and forward thinking guy like Kerry ran some fact-finding, prototype missions to develope the tactics for taking PCFs on covert ops into Cambodia later in the war. That must be the ticket.

BTW, I don’t find this piece entirely convincing (a bit too convoluted for me to follow well and I still don’t have the names and relationships down pat), but it sure seems to be the sort of thing a consciencious press would be digging around to check out. Captain Ed has an article where research by RiverRat (who stops by here at Roger’s Place from time to time, IIRC) places in question whether one of Kerry’s Band of Brothers (a Rev. David Alston, who apparently spoke at the DNC) did actually serve as one of Kerry’s crew or not.

Curioser and curioser.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:16 am 203. Fresh Air:

Captain Ed has spotted another swatch in Kerry’s tissue of lies. Seems one of his “band of brothers” wasn’t on his boat when he said he was.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:18 am 204. RogerA:

John Lynch: A cursory look at Kerry’s career indicates to me that he has been wrong on almost every national security issue: Nicaragua, Cuba, Soviet Union, Intelligence–and, of course, the ADA ratings speak for themselves in terms of domestic issues.

I increasingly think JFK lite wrapped himself in the Viet Nam thing to avoid attention to his voting record, and even that’s backfiring. The latest Gallup shows Bush above 50% in approval and Kerry dropping slightly–dont have the link, sorry. And it will be most interesting to see if Bush gets a convention bounce–I suspect he will–Kerry’s dead cat bounce suggests to me that the DNC won’t even be able to play the expectations game.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:18 am 205. Fresh Air:

Knuckle & I crossed in cyberspace. My 9:18 post is a link to the Alston story.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:26 am 206. John Lynch:

RogerA

I saw the Gallup polls as well.

I agree on the record of Kerry being bad, I just don’t see much coverage of it.

While the Bush/Cheney campaign are staying away from the SwiftBoat Vets discussion, maybe the press are staying away from it as well (for that reason,) but the Bush/Cheney campaign aren’t staying away from his (Kerry’s) record, and it isn’t getting coverage either.

Hmm.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:34 am 207. John Lynch:

Knuck, Fresh

Interesting post on Alstom. I hope it is well supported. This kind of “additional” information can be used to discredit the larger story if it is found to be faulty.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:39 am 208. RogerA:

John Lynch: you are right, of course–I suspect the President will have the convention as an opportunity for some coverage (probably not much) and, of course, the debates–I expect the MSM to cover criticisms of the Kerry record even less vigorously than they have covered the Kerry Viet Nam record. A sad commentary on the MSM in their self congratulatory guardians of democracy pose.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:39 am 209. John Lynch:

RogerA

I hope the convention, and the debates, bring some coverage. It is a bit of a gamble as real world events can overshadow coverage of specific dates/locations.

There are certainly enough real-world things happening that could come up during the convention and/or the debates.

It wouldn’t take much of an excuse for the MSM to promote something else, like a traffic accident, or a celebrity trial, as more important.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:45 am 210. penwil:

Kerry’s remark that he would wage a more “sensitive” war on terrorism got small initial coverage, but it got a lot more when Cheney started bringing it up in campaign speeches and then Kerry’s people started whining that Cheney was “mocking” him and that wasn’t nice. So then I saw a headline on the Yahoo news that read something like: Cheney Mocks Kerry’s ‘Sensitive’ War. What delicious irony; hardly anybody would have known he’d made the stupid remark in the first place if he hadn’t whined about Cheney being mean. Then, of course, his media lackey’s picked up on the story, at which time they quoted the stupid remark for all to see (and it was stupid–made him sound like he was going to meet with bin Ladin and sing Kumbaya).

Not that we weren’t going to see that remark showing up in Bush’s campaign adds next month.

Still, I’m not at all impressed with Kerry’s campaign managers. It’s as if they all think that with the MSM on their side, they’ve got it in the bag. Sadly, they may be right.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:49 am 211. Roberts:

Now we have the Kerry campaign calling Teresa an “African American”.

They have no shame.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:55 am 212. Knucklehead:

John Moore:

VDH does a characteristically excellent breakdown of the pathologies behind Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:56 am 213. John Lynch:

penwil

True. I did see coverage of Cheney’s insensitive attack on Kerry’s sensitive war remark. LOL. I wonder if that is the secret to coverage. Get picked up for attacking Kerry, since the MSM covers little else. It would be hard to use that as a tactic to get actual data on Kerry out though. The press would just summarize it as “Cheney attack Kerry’s honorable years in the Senate” not on the specifics.

Cheney was here in Dayton yesterday. No local coverage at all. National coverage was the “sensitive” remark.

Sigh.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:59 am 214. Syl:

Thanks for the link to the budget impact statement. One of the authors, Kevin Hassett, has an article at TCS about it. (found the link at Instapundit)

2.1 trillion dollars over ten years. No way we can ‘pay as we go’ through that much.

That’s over $600/year more from every man, woman, and child in America than we’re paying now.

On Foxnews the other day there were two politicians from Chicago discussing funding for Homeland Security there. They had worked out a plan to do something (don’t remember what) but it was going to cost $200 billion. One guy was was telling how he could get the Feds to pay for it.

The Fox gal said, well, you’re a democrat, your first option is always going to the federal government, what do you (indicating the other gentleman), as a Republican propose?

I almost fell off my chair. Anyway the Republican had a plan for bonds and something (I don’t understand any of this so if I get the terms wrong, please shoot) that involved the private sector.

Somehow, whenever the Dems have power, it costs us all more money.

———-

BTW, all, great discussion here. I enjoyed reading it all but came in to late to join the side issue of health insurance. Maybe another time.

Oh, just one little thing. Doubt if Hollywood will back to read this. But regarding the infant mortality rate, some of the issues have been covered. But as I understand it the main reason our mortality rate is higher than some other western nations is that we have the highest incidences of multiple births and unfortunately usually not all the infants survive.

If we weren’t so good at the fertility business, that rate would be lower.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:00 am 215. John Lynch:

Roberts

Yes, but that’s African American, not African-American. The hyphen makes the difference. Aren’t you nuanced yet?

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:06 am 216. doublecola:

PRESIDENT BUSH STRESSES NEED TO BE “SENSITIVE” IN MILTARY AFFAIRS: On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be “sensitive” in conducting military affairs, stating, “because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence.” And just last week, President Bush said, “In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.”

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:09 am 217. WichitaBoy:

Charlie (CO)

That was an excellent post on the state of the economy.

There are two things that really bother me about the way this is handled by the Democratic party. First, the facts are seldom brought into it. Instead, we just have a steady mantra of nonsense, repeated over and over ad nauseam. The economy is in very good shape right now; there’s no denying that from almost any statistical perspective. Strictly speaking, we didn’t even have a recession, let alone the Great Depression. We had only a one month downturn. For most of us the Great Depression is unimaginable anyway. It’s merely an abstract boogeyman.

Of course, if one is out of a job right now it doesn’t look that way. There are still a lot of extremely talented computer professionals out of work right now and as far as I can tell that situation may last indefinitely. We’ve had a massive structural shift in the economy and some people have been burned. Those jobs will never come back. Nonetheless, they’re a small group in the population as a whole and there are a lot of people out there with a lot of money who are doing just fine, thank you very much. In my experience, these rich trustifarians are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans, imagine that.

But the much more serious issue, to my mind, is the very idea that it’s the President’s job to “fix” the economy. This is admittedly a kind of magical reasoning which goes deeply into the human psyche, the idea that the God-king will bring manna from heaven and must be killed if he doesn’t, cf. The Golden Bough. But it’s just nonsense. Presidents don’t manage free economies, the people do it. By working a little harder I’ve made a few more dollars and I’m using those dollars to buy some books recommended here on this board. That puts money in the hands of the booksellers and authors which they can in turn plow back into whatever project they deem important. Go look up Lilek’s Story of the Staircase.

It’s true that the President or the people he appoints can screw up the economy by excessive taxation or by fiddling foolishly with the money supply. This happened in the Thirties, when the government responded to a financial crisis by removing liquidity, of all things. And it is true that massive ill-conceived governmental programs, such as HillaryCare, do have the potential to screw the economy up seriously. That danger was ultimately avoided under Clinton. The severest test possible of a President’s ability to respond to economic disaster was administered to Bush when Clinton’s stock market bubble burst, followed in close order by the near collapse of the airline industry, and Bush was left holding the bag. We could easily have had a repeat of the Thirties fiasco or at least the Seventies fiasco. That we didn’t, and that we’ve apparently landed back on our feet, tells you all you need to know about this team’s ability to “handle” the economy. They’ve done a bang-up job during extreme duress.

The reason that the incessant drum-beat of attacking the President for his “handling” of the economy bothers me tremendously is that it has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every time this meme is repeated without challenge makes it more plausible in some people’s minds. Eventually people will become convinced that “handling” the economy is exactly the reason we do elect Presidents, which inevitably will lead to the demand for more and larger governmental programs to cure the incurable and fix the unfixable. This is a kind of corrosion of the system which will eventually destroy it, to everyone’s detriment. Anyone who has an honest interest in helping the poor and making sure it remains possible to make a decent living in this country should abandon this particular line of propaganda post haste.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:11 am 218. doublecola:

“This makes Kerry a very, very frightening guy. It would be like electing Ted Bundy.”

Comparing Kerry to Bundy, well that’s just like comparing Bush to Hitler…thank God most of the conservatives here don’t stoop to that level.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:16 am 219. Knucklehead:

I have no idea how to check on this, but I distinctly recall reading, some years ago, that there are some subtle differences in the ways that infant mortality rates are calculated in, for example, Europe vs. the US that yields a permanent “unfavorable” comparison for the US (we apparently count some things as infant mortality that “smarter, more progressive, more caring and senstive” countries don’t count).

For those interested, here is the National Center for Health Statistics

I have not located anything similar for the EU or whatever that would even begin to allow any comparison of methods for calculating rates.

BTW, in support of an argument I made earlier in this thread, see the March of Dimes Peristats site. Much of what causes “infant mortality” is not “health care” related but “social problems” related – the “you can lead a pregnant woman to health care but you can’t make her take care of herself of her fetus” kinda stuff.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:21 am 220. John Lynch:

WichitaBoy

Well written post.

The President (and by extension, his administration) does have an effect on the economy. However, the belief that the President can “fix” the economy is, as you state, an oversimplification. And, also as you state, the belief has gone unchallenged in the press.

The President’s policies can reduce tax burdens, reduce litigation expenses, and reduce regulatory burdens. Each of these, and more (money supply, interest rate, environmental issues, ?) can stimulate the overall or targeted sectors of the economy. Conversely, taxes, litigation environment, regulation, and more can burden the entire or targeted sectors of the economy.

In and of themselves, they do not “fix” the economy, the businesses themselves do that. Individuals, small business, larger corporations, and the multinationals, each, and jointly have primacy in the betterment, or decline in the economic situation.

At most, the government can burden the engine, or reduce the burden.

That a President can be incompetent in fixing an economy is proven through the Carter years. The Bush (43) years have shown that a President can be pro-active in providing stimulus, and for the most part, businesses have responded.

Kerry, and his proposals, appear to a) significantly increase tax burdens; b) significantly increase the litigation environment; c) significantly increase regulatory burdens; and d) significantly increase environmental burdens.

I am not against each or any of these burdens being put on businesses. It is the totality that must be managed in order to not strangle the well-being of companies, which by extension, is our jobs, and our ability to spend, and …

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:28 am 221. Sandy P:

–PRESIDENT BUSH STRESSES NEED TO BE “SENSITIVE” IN MILTARY AFFAIRS: On 3/4/01,–

9/10 statement for a 9/10 world.

Nice try, though, doublecola.

I wasn’t aware Bundy built ovens and put people into them.

Learn something new every day, thanks.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:51 am 222. doublecola:

I guess you missed this in my post:

And just last week, President Bush said, “In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.”

Let’s be honest, comparing Kerry to Bundy is disgusting. I have no respect for lefties who compare Bush to Hitler. I have no respect for righties who compare Kerry to Bundy.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:03 am 223. Sandy P:

Via the Professor:

KHAANNN! Lynx Pherrett says that the New York Times is the culprit. “Pakistan Intelligence ‘Outed’ Khan to the NYT. It seems that as far as I or anyone else can determine, the New York Times was the first to publish Khan’s name.”

—

It’s not that they’re against the war, it’s just they’re on the other side.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:07 am 224. Knucklehead:

Witchita:

Interesting post. For anyone who is unemployed unemployment is a big problem. For some reason people blame unemployment on presidents. Presidents have little ability to directly effect the number of jobs. They are given way too much blame for bad numbers and, of course, take way too much credit for good numbers.

For individuals the creation and destruction of particular jobs rarely has much to do with executive branch decisions or actions. And all government actions typically require roughly a year to even begin to effect employment even to the small extent they can effect it.

I have a former friend who is a certifiable lunatic when it comes to BDS and exhibits all the pathologies VDH pointed out and then some. A local saw mill had to close – Bush did it. Try to drill down on why he blames Bush and you get to “China is dumping lumber in the US.” What he expects a president to do about that (especially since this was like 90 days after Bush took office) is a mystery to me. Send the sub fleet out to sink lumber cargoes or turn them away from out ports or somesuch, I guess. A local retail store goes out of business because a Walmart opened a few miles away – Bush’s fault. I guess Bush was supposed to sieze and close Walmarts as his first official presidential act.

In the IT/computer related jobs world, the loss that has gone on is, in retrospect, completely understandable. Types of jobs disappear over time and other types of jobs that were once “high paying jobs for well-educated experts” slowly but surely become “common knowledge” jobs that don’t require high-pay to fill.

As an example for those whose hi-tech experience goes back roughly 20 years, consider how many people once made good livings as draftsmen. Any electronics, design, architecture, building, etc. type firm of any size had rooms full of people working at drafting tables. Anyone seen a draftsman at a drafting table in the last decade or so?

What happened to IT jobs was predictable even though few of us predicted it. Once again, go back roughly 20 years in the ol’ memory banks. I’m just making a knuckleheaded SWAG here since I don’t have data to back this up, but I don’t think it is off the mark to say that there were somewhere around 15% “care and feeding” type IT jobs relative to the number of “computer user” jobs. If a company had, say, 200 workers who used computers they probably had another 30 or so workers who took care of those computers (feeding tapes and printers and changing disk packs and the like). Not to mention maintenance workers. It used to require two men and a little boy to install a 300MB disk drive and a danged expert technician to add 16MB of RAM to a computer. There used to be rooms full of well paid women who worked Wang wordprocessors. There used to be enormous rooms full of women pounding on punch card machines and tons of salivating young men servicing the card punches. Entire floors of the now defunct WTC were computer rooms servicing a few hundred computer users. If you wanted to install a significant IT RDBMS system you used to have to work out the details with a half-dozen different types of experts: disk layout guys, systems guys, relational algebra gurus, tuning experts, DBAs, etc. I had a buddy who spent years making a great living working for IBM in a programming dept. that produced SW we used to a “Management Information System” and is now referred to as spreadsheet SW.

As computer usage was growing it masked the fact that at the same time the percentage of people needed for “care and feeding” was plummeting and the expertise required to care for and feed computers was being built into the HW and SW and becoming increasingly “child’s play”.

We’ve reached the point where one good IT person can care for and feed hundreds (sometimes thousands if its done properly) of computers. And just about any clever HS sophomore can install disks and RAM anymore. If there are people still paying attention to relational algebra they are buried deep in the bowels of places like Oracle and Microsoft and, maybe, the very largest RDBMS users.

I was talking to my HS junior nephew a few years ago and he was telling me about his “job”. His job was running around, part-time, taking care of 30 or 40 PCs for some local company. He did their network hookups and SW installs and the like and he wasn’t a particular guru either. And they didn’t need to pay him $60K or any such salary.

I remember the days when there were highly paid “marketing” people who developed the presentations executives and sales people used. They had expertise that was valuable. Just about any kid who excels in HS and passes college anymore knows pretty much everything those former marketing experts used to get paid darned good money to do. I see the presentations my kids and their buddies cook up anymore and I just shake my head in amazement. The skills are common knowledge anymore and nobody is paying good money just for those skills – they are just expected and ordinary skill anymore.

No president did any of that.

I remember back when Bush first took office he was pilloried for not doing some steel tarrifs quickly enough and then pilloried for doing them at all. The US steel business could not possibly compete with the Chicom steel dumpers. Last steel industry report I saw, IIRC, said that the Chicoms have now outstripped their ability to produce steel (and concrete) and are now importing something like 1/3 of the world’s steel production. So, uhhh…, are we hearing anything about the booming US steel industry?

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:10 am 225. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

To understand this year at all, two things must be accepted and factored in to almost any analysis:

1) There are many who hate Bush. Among them are the entire establishment press.

2) Democrats will use unfair and false attacks, because they know the establishment press will back them. They do not need to fear investigative reporting unless something really whacko goes on.

As a result of the first two, issues just provide more opportunities for ad hominem attacks. Nobody cares about the issues, and nobody in his right mind believes anything that Kerry promises, because he is far more of a liar than the average politician.

We can gripe about it all we want (and I do), but the MSM is so strongly against Bush that if they were on Kerry’s boat, it would capsize to the port side.

For those here who used to vote for Democrat presidents, this may be a new experience. For those of us who have been Republicans a long time, we are used to it. However, even for us, this year is extreme in the bias and unique in the hatred. It is clear that the Democrats would elect a traitor (whom Kerry might be – pick your definitions and make your assumptions about what happened in his two meetings with the enemy) rather than Bush. Hell, they’d elect a yellow dog.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:19 am 226. John Lynch:

Knucklehead

Good post.

I am here in Ohio. A battleground state. A rust-belt state. Split between blue collar auto industry, agri-business, and some tech.

We’ve taken a hit in employment. Much of it is due to true changes in business conditions. These are not presidential decrees. These are changes in competitive and real infrastructure changes.

If a president did try to fix them, there would be true damage to other parts of the economy. Building cars or trucks with outdated plants, or outdated manufacturing processes would result in lower quality and higher prices. It does cause pain. But it does require change. A President cannot hold back these changes without causing harm. At best, a President could delay the changes, which I believe would actually cause more harm than getting through the changes.

Protectionist policies seem inherently wrong to me.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:21 am 227. John Lynch:

John Moore

You are right. There needs to be a certain amount of “deal with it.” Bitching about the MSM isn’t going to fix it.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:24 am 228. Sandy P:

Via An Englishman’s Castle:

ONE in ten patients admitted to NHS hospitals will fall victim to medical errors, which have now become Britain’s fourth-biggest killer.

Medical accidents and errors contribute to the deaths of 72,000 people a year, and they are directly blamed for 40,000. They also cost the NHS £2 billion in increased hospital stays alone.

However, fewer than a third of an estimated 900,000 annual mistakes are properly reported, an independent audit reveals today.

According to Times Online.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:30 am 229. bdog57:

DC,

Let’s be honest, comparing Kerry to Bundy is disgusting. I have no respect for lefties who compare Bush to Hitler. I have no respect for righties who compare Kerry to Bundy

Why?

First, let’s look at the logic: equal disdain is reserved for BusHitler and KerryBundy. Thus, it would naturally flow that -in your mind- Hitler=Bundy. I won’t go into why that is a seriously flawed construct here.

Suffice to say, what did Bundy do? He killed dozens of innocent victims whom he had power over. Kerry has admitted to doing the same type of thing (though he doesn’t quantify the number of victims).

If you go to one of the websites that Mr. Moore (who made the “Bundy” remark) is affiliated with, you can find this nugget from Kerry’s Congressional Testimony. It would seem to square with the Kerry=Bundy remark fairly well.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:34 am 230. Sandy P:

You’re right, I did, doublecola.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:36 am 231. doublecola:

Bdog57,

Let’s let Mr. Moore’s comparing Bundy to Kerry stand on it’s own. It still disgusts me.

You’re fine with Mr. Moore’s statement.

To me, it’s just as bad as what the lefties try to do.

I can’t respect his words

(i know, who cares)–it just make politics needlessly ugly and yes, I find it a cheap smear tactic.

DC

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:48 am 232. John Lynch:

Syl

Interesting analysis on the $2.1T.

That $600 per person is if the costs were evenly divided. A recent analysis (I don’t remember the link) indicated that taxes are actually spread among income classes. If I recall correctly, about 40% pay little or no taxes. About 40% pay about half the total tax burden, and about 20% pay the remaining half. I think the breaks were below $32K, $32K to $56K, and above $56K in income levels. I suspect that means that those in the middle would be paying half the new burden, and those above $56K would be paying the other half of the new burden.

It’s Friday afternoon, and my math skills aren’t with me right now, but I suspect it means more than $600 per person in those ranges.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:49 am 233. hollywood:

Charlie (CO),

I see your points, but see: http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030929.html

Syl,

Interesting thoughts. Not sure what the boittom line is on the multiple births and the stats.

Dennis,

Oh forget it.

Knucklehead,

Tried to open your historical tables link and it froze my crappy computer. See link under Charlie above.

Gotta go.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:51 am 234. Cain:

Yo:

First to Dennis: peace is just a colloquial and casual way to say goodbye, to finish off an e-mail or a post. That’s all.

Media complaints:

So the mass media is strongly in bed with the Democrats. It really, really wants Democrats to win. 9 out of 10 journalists are Democrats. OK.

Let’s think about this logically. We can all agree that the country is more or less evenly split. We can also agree that in the US, media is free enterprise, so each network or newspaper has a rational incentive to appeal to as many customers as possible.

It would be rather foolish if the entire media appealed solely to liberals, wouldn’t it? Why would the media alienate fifty percent of the population?

Do individual journalists, reporting the news, have THAT big of an influence on what gets reported? They have editors, yes?

I think it’s more than a little ridiculous to accuse news journalists of collusion in spreading liberal propaganda.

It’s quite simple. If you don’t like what you’re reading/seeing, find something else you do like. There are plenty of sources to satisfy each side.

Final point on this Kerry issue: so a bunch of Vietnam Vets went up on stage with him at the Convention as his “band of brothers”. Another bunch of vets are coming out now and saying that Kerry’s a fraud.

It seems like if you’re a liberal, you’re bound to believe the men up on stage that night. If you’re a conservative, or at least anti-Kerry, you’re going to think these new men are actually right.

I don’t think many people that would have voted for Kerry are going to change their minds over this SWIFT boat revelation. It makes those of you already opposed to him oppose him more…but I think it’s much ado about nothing.

Again, If this sinks Kerry, then I’ll come out and virtually pat you all on the back. But until then,

peace

Aug 13, 2004 - 12:39 pm 235. bdog57:

DC,

You, not I, brought up Bushitler. I am not necessesarily “fine” with Mr. Moore’s statement, I’m just pointing out that a Kerry=Bundy statement is a lot closer to reality than a Bush=Hitler statement. The inability to differentiate between a serial killer and a mass murderer (or any of a number of similar yet different concepts), seems to be a common affliction among those opposed to Bush – though I’m not necessarily accusing you of this affliction (yet).

Aug 13, 2004 - 12:47 pm 236. WichitaBoy:

hollywood

The problem I have with most of your posts is well summarized by this snippet from the link you bestowed upon us: “So the question arises, whose math do you trust: Bushís or Sloanís?”

What’s wrong with that? Here’s what’s wrong with that. It doesn’t matter who delivers a message.

The information content of a message is independent of the provenance of the message.

All of your arguments tend toward the ad hominem. You don’t seem to grasp that this is a fundamental fallacy known for literally millenia.

It doesn’t matter whose math it is or who said it, what matters is whether, when analyzed logically given the facts, the one assertion or the other is more correct.

The source of the assertion is completely irrelevant.

Aug 13, 2004 - 12:48 pm 237. bdog57:

Cain makes my point for me about the inability to differentiate:

Final point on this Kerry issue: so a bunch of Vietnam Vets went up on stage with him at the Convention as his “band of brothers”. Another bunch of vets are coming out now and saying that Kerry’s a fraud.

Never mind the fact that Bunch A consists of a handful of men while Bunch B consists of 250+ men.

Aug 13, 2004 - 12:49 pm 238. jerry:

Cain:

First, I agree that the SWIFTIES charges/Kerry defense will not change very many minds. The reason is that the media, both left and right, have focused on the “he said/she said” aspects. Unless it is put in context then it becomes ìa much ado about nothingî story.

So what is the context? The Cambodia lie, and we all now know it was a lie, was used to show how Reagan was engaged in an illegal war against the “People of Nicaragua” in 1986. This is extremely important in the present context of the GWOT. Kerry was taking sides with a Communist dictator against the United States just as he did in 1971. After three elections in the country we should all know by now that real people of Nicaragua were grateful for Reagan’s support for the Contras. Kerry’s lies in 1971 helped North Vietnam conquer the South and the Khmer Rouge to take over Cambodia. The result was untold misery for the people of both nations. These were known facts in 1986 when he delivered his speech and he still sided with the Communists. This is relevant for today’s world. I think Kerry remains sympathetic to anti-American dictators and terrorist groups. He believes they oppose us for what we do not who we are. His approach is to appease not confront. That’s why he wants to cut and run in Iraq, where either the Baathists will be returned to power or Iran will gain control. He will also cut and run from Afghanistan and let the Taliban return to power. He probably thinks that they have be chastened and will not let Bin Laden back in. His approach to Iran, which I saw elucidated by Wes Clark, is to cut a deal on the supply of nuclear fuel just like Clinton did for North Korea. It is funny that the EU-3 has already rejected this demand. So much for being in sync with our European allies.

There is a direct link between that 1986 speech and Kerry’s ideas on how to deal with global terrorism and nuclear proliferation and that is the real story behind his Christmas in Cambodia lie.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:12 pm 239. Bostonian:

And it’s not just Bunch A against Bunch B. There’s also surrounding documentary evidence. In the case of Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry’s been proven a liar, not just by say-so.

As for his medals, well, if he signs the 180, that will settle that issue.

John Kerry, if you claim that your records are going to prove these men to be liars, I just say, “Bring it on.”

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:13 pm 240. Fresh Air:

Cain wrote:

It would be rather foolish if the entire media appealed solely to liberals, wouldn’t it? Why would the media alienate fifty percent of the population?

Do individual journalists, reporting the news, have THAT big of an influence on what gets reported? They have editors, yes?

I think it’s more than a little ridiculous to accuse news journalists of collusion in spreading liberal propaganda.

Cain–

I don’t watch television, so I can’t really comment on that. But let me explain the newspaper bias issue to you.

First off, it is very foolish of them to aim at a liberal audience. They are paying for it now, with massive declines in circulation and layoffs in newsrooms. I used to be a newspaper junkie who read three or four a day. I haven’t bought a newspaper in four months.

The individual journalists may or may not have the sort of influence you describe. Some, like say, Todd Purdum or David Sanger, do. Others are just writing stories their editors have assigned them. But how stories are played and positioned is everything. Remember the Florida re-re-counts. They appeared on page A16 in the NYT. If they had said Bush would have lost you can bet they would have been smack dab on page A1. Also most editors are liberals too. (Goes double for copy editors/headline writers.) What I am saying is amply supported by third-pary research. Don’t make me get the statistics; it’s simply too obvious.

Do they “spread” liberal propaganda? Not always, but they certainly give it more attention than it’s due. Witness the falderol over the groundless “Bush was AWOL story.”

The problem is newspapers in this country with only maybe three exceptions have embarked on a campaign to unseat the president. Day by day, they are destroying their credibility. It is a terribly foolhardy endeavor, for even if they succeed in unseating Bush they will have lost a large portion of their readership forever.

I would not be pleased to be a New York Times stockholder right now.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:31 pm 241. Sandy P:

–After three elections in the country we should all know by now that real people of Nicaragua were grateful for Reagan’s support for the Contras. –

IF Danny Boy’s lucky, he might be elected dog catcher. But not president.

3x he ran and was defeated.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:45 pm 242. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood:

There are a couple of problems with the Tobias column. First off, the whole argument depends on equivocation of what “benefits” means — the Bush tax cuts eliminated income taxes for a large proportion of the lowest income people, and made the tax system more progressive overall. These are supposed to be Good Things. However, since the dollars benefit per person was highest for the top incomes, you can make the argument that it “benefits” those people more, even though they end up paying a greater proportion of the taxes than they did before.

It’s a bullshit argument, but as long as you’re not too precise about it, you can make the argument.

But as WichitaBoy points out, the real point of Tobias’s column, “whose math do you trust?” isn’t a “who” question. In fact, making it a question of “who” is explicitly the ad hominem fallacy.

The answer to “Whose math do you trust?” is mine. Show your work, and I’ll check it. When I say “the rate of change of X must be greater than the rate of change of Y”, that’s a mathematical statement that anyone with a little sophistication can check.

When someone says “Bush lied about WMD”, it’s something that can be checked. A “lie” is a knowing falsehood with the intent to deceive, and since (a) Bush said the same thing Clinton and a raft of others said, (b) we know that Tenet told him it was a “slam dunk”, and (c) we have lots of independent source that thought Saddam had large piles of WMD somewhere, and (d) we know Saddam definitly had at least some WMD, we can absolutely conclusively infer that Bush didn’t “lie”.

When Tobias says “benefits” but equivocates, or when someone says “Bush lied about WMD” but ignores what “lie” means, or when someone continues the “plastic turkey” story even thugh it’s been proven false, that’s something else. It’s not argument.

Aug 13, 2004 - 1:50 pm 243. flenser:

To bring things back to the topic of the dishonesty of the liberal media, all we need to do is examine the link holywood provided. Written by Allan Sloan in Newsweek, it includes the following claim;

“For fiscal 2004, which starts in about 4 weeks, the budget office projects a $644 billion deficit. This would be 5.8 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, which approaches the 6 percent record set by Ronald Reagan?s 1983 budget deficit. Reagan?s deficits set off alarm bells in Washington, he signed onto a huge tax increase and fiscal sanity made a comeback in Washington.”

For a change we have a liberal making statements that can be examined and proven true or false. Usually, they avoid that mistake.

Yes, the CBO is projecting a $644 billion deficit. Yes, this would be about 5.8 percent of GDP. But no, this does not approach the record, which is not 6% back in 1983. The largest deficit I have found is 30%, in 1943.

Sloan also engages in some very fanciful speculation, namely that tax revenues will decline, that expenditures will increase, and that nobody will take any corrective action, in order to predict a deficit of $7.4 trillion over an unspecified period. Federal tax revenues have been been rising steadily for the last hundred years; the probability that they will decline over the next several years approaches zero.

Sloan presumably gets paid a decent salary to write this mixture of untruths, half-truths, and speculation. Maybe we should outsource his job to India?

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:00 pm 244. Knucklehead:

For those interested in more of the Oh, hell, I don’t remember exactly when it was but I was in Cambodia! story, Questions and Observations has an interesting analysis.

To summarize, during the time in question Kerry was assigned to Coastal Division 13. Coastal Division 13ís patrol areas extended from the coast to Sa Dec which is roughly halfway to Cambodia. From there to the Cambodian border belonged to River Division 531 (apparently a primarily PBR outfit).

A commenter at QandO pointed out that Kerry’s fitrep from Elliott mentions the SEALORDS Campaign, a summary of which places US Navy rivercraft beginning operations into Cambodia in May of 1970. According to Kerry’s website he terminated active service in March of 1970 and seems to have left Vietnam in March or April of 1969.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:12 pm 245. Charlie (Colorado):

By golly, just about when I finished that note, the NYT comes out with an article that makes my point:

“Tax Cuts heavily Favor the Wealthy”.

It’s exactly the fallacious use of “benefits” I was talking about: it “benefits” the wealthy more because “The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings – averaging about $57,000 a year – were getting an average cut of only $1,090.”

Notice they leave a couple of things out. First, what’s the average income for the people who got a tax cut of about $78k? They mention the average income for the middle quintile. The don’t mention the whole top quintile. They don’t mention that the $1600 average is heavily weighted to the top of that quintile, and that a good bit of that quintile actually had their income taxes reduced to zero.

(Note: you can’t reduce your income taxes below zero.)

Second, they don’t mention how many people got that average $78k. If they did, we might find out that the middle quintile actually got a much bigger part of the benefits as a group.

I’ll look more closely at the report itself (PDF) later, but just from the Times story you can follow the fallacies.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:12 pm 246. DennisThePeasant:

First to Dennis: peace is just a colloquial and casual way to say goodbye, to finish off an e-mail or a post. That’s all.

No, that isn’t all. In addition to be a ‘colloquial and casual way to say goodbye’, it is an expression of the kind of 1960s Ditwitted Leftist/Hippie bullshit that we are, at present, being subjected to by John Kerry and his cadre of ‘Can’t Let Those Groovy Times Of Our Youth Go’ Baby-Boomer morons. I came of age in the late 70s/early 80s and am one of those of my generation that found refuge from a whole generation of self-obsessed, navel-gazing whackoffs, and the damage they did to the U.S. and world, by embracing the visions of Ronald Reagan and P.J. O’Rourke.

“Peace” is what I heard out every Lefty Dimwit who would gladly give away someone else’s life, liberty and happiness (like in Viet Nam and Cambodia, for starters) in the name of some simpleminded vision of collective utopia that they themselves were unwilling to experience personally. It is also what I heard out of every Leftist who wanted to sell this country down the sewer to the designated charismatic dictator of the week…Mao, Castro or whoever…to hustle themselves some sort of purely personal advantage…like getting a political career started, for example.

In other words, “Peace” is what I have been hearing, as a quaint and colorful native greeting, out of every chickenshit Suburban Marxist I have known over the past 35 years. What you seem to be unaware of is that “My ass” is the way most Reagan/O’Rourke Republicans colloquially and casually express their level of respect for (and interest in forming close personal bonds with) the type people who said “Peace” back in those groovy days of Winter Soldier and Laurel Canyon III.

I am not saying you are one of those types, because I don’t know anything about you. I was just returned that particular greeting in the same manner I always have since 1981.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:16 pm 247. RogerA:

Geez, Dennis: tell us how you REALLY feel–holding back like you do is going to give you ulcers faster than the diet you have described to us.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:25 pm 248. DennisThePeasant:

I was channelling Dick Cheney.

Felt good, too.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:26 pm 249. sammy small:

DtP,

My response to “Peace” is “Through Superior Firepower”. It looks good on a t-shirt.

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:46 pm 250. penwil:

I have a question . . .

Does McCain-Feingold say the candidates themselves can’t run any TV advertisements whatsoever once we get within 60 days of the election?

If that is so–then how is Bush going to get his message out to offset even a little the negative shellacking the MSM is going to be dealing him in September and October?

Aug 13, 2004 - 2:59 pm 251. PeterUK:

Dennis,

The correct usage is.

Peace ON

…..Comment….

Peace OFf

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:00 pm 252. hollywood:

flenser and charlie (colorado),

As you recall, the Tobias column didn’t quote the entire Sloan piece (I couldn’t find the whole thing on the net). I’m sure somewhere in the rest he mentions that he’s speaking about deficits since 1945. Here’s another take on the same issue. http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/

Given the number of folks that are retiring and the impact on the SSA trust fund (can you say wipeout?), surely we have to be concerned.

Charlie,

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought I heard a recent news piece saying that tax revenues are down. On second thought, maybe it was consumer spending since there’s no rebate/refund/advance this summer like last year. Still, if the latter, that would seem to effect revenues.

Also, I think you can reduce tax revenues below zero, and as I recall conservatives get their backs up when folks at the low end of the stick get tax credits in excess of taxes paid.

As for ad hominem arguments, I just try to file em under Dennis.

As for Bush lying about WMD, I’d actually feel better about it if he did lie. At least there would be some scheme/thought behind what he said and did. As it is, I’m willing to say he didn’t do his homework and made some big mistakes. Does this cause me to lose confidence in him especially when coupled with his posturing–you bet!

flenser,

Say what you will about liberal commentators, aren’t you the least bit concerned about our increased borrowing from the rest of the world? How much debt service can we afford? Don’t we eventually get into a negative amortization situation?

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:04 pm 253. Terrye:

Hollywood:

The point is math is math. We can interpret data differently but math is not open to debate.

Here is some math for you: I work with a single mom that lives with her truck driver boyfriend, they file seperately. Every spring she gets back almost three times more than she pays in taxes from the government. Exactly how do you give her a tax cut?

I rmember when Clinton made that trax hike retroactive, Gale said he would never vote for a democrat again, and he has not. He is absolutely sure that if Kerry wins the regulations and taxes he will impose will shut down his business. These people each have a different view of things obviously.

Here in Indiana we went from surplus to deficit in one year. How? Well our state invested in the stock market and when the bubble burst we found that the surplus was all on paper. I think the same is true for the federal surplus as well. It was an illusion. A terrorists attack and a slow down and it became apparent that much of Clinton’s balanced budget was smoke and mirrors.

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:08 pm 254. Kevin P:

Cain:

Someone has probably given you this answer but I will reinforce it. The are probably 2 main reasons the swifties waited till now to get together and tell us about JFK. Most people only pay attention to the Senate races in their own state.So only the vets who lived in Mass would be that aware of who was running. But I think the biggest factor was seeing this preening peacock selling himself as a warrior hero. They worked with him, knew what he was like in Vietnam, and to see him portray himself as Audey Murphy after his Jane Kerry act when he got out of the service probably sent them over the edge. Plus the fact that they probably were in mortal fear of having the safety of their families put in this mans hands. To me is easy to understand why they waited till know. This is the first time there lives would be soley in this Man’s hands.That would inspire most ex military men who had knowledge of what he was like in action. As far as I can tell its about a 250 to 18 edge against Kerry among the people who were with him in those 4 months. And the one Kerry man we hear the most from was with him for 2 days.

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:11 pm 255. hollywood:

penwil,

It’s not what you think. It’s the phony issue ads paid for by unions and profit making corporations that are forbidden. http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/mccain.html

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:30 pm 256. Charlie (Colorado):

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought I heard a recent news piece saying that tax revenues are down.

You’re right. You are confused.

Actually, tax receipts are way up, which is why the deficit is about $100 billion below projections.

Last month’s retail sales were down — but this month’s are up a good bit again.

I’d claim the notion of a tax credit as a reduction of taxes below zero as one of those equivocations I was talking about; yes, you can redistribute income by taking it from A and giving it to B, but you aren’t reducing B’s taxes in doing so.

You’re right that social security is a concern. The problem is that social security as it is run today is a government sponsored Ponzi game that depends on a growing population. There really is no solution to it that doesn’t involve either some form of privatization — so the money can be invested — or that eventually doesn’t go broke.

You pick one.

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:39 pm 257. hollywood:

FWIW, isn’t Bush the first President since Hoover to end his term with a net job loss–over a million jobs! And aren’t the new jobs that are being created paying an average of $9,000 per annum less than the lost jobs? Doesn’t sound good for revenue to me. Like terrye says, “The math is the math.”

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:51 pm 258. Kevin P:

Roger:

To those who spout the John O’Neil is a long time Republican operative meme. In the last three Presidential elections he voted for Perot twice and Gore once.Party hacks just aren’t what they used to be.

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:58 pm 259. Syl:

John Lynch

“I am here in Ohio. A battleground state. A rust-belt state. Split between blue collar auto industry, agri-business, and some tech. We’ve taken a hit in employment. Much of it is due to true changes in business conditions. These are not presidential decrees. These are changes in competitive and real infrastructure changes.”

There’s another factor too. There are states down south that have had an influx of manufacturing (mainly auto I think) from foreign outfits. The business conditions are much more favorable in the south where unions don’t have so strong a hold. And of course we know about companies leaving California for Texas because of taxes.

States, more than presidents, have a profound affect on the health of their own businesses.

Oh, and as far as the $600/person, it’s actually more than double that because I was using total population figures, including children.

Cain

“It would be rather foolish if the entire media appealed solely to liberals, wouldn’t it? Why would the media alienate fifty percent of the population?”

It’s simpler than that. A fish just swims through the water, he doesn’t feel wet. You turn to the news and get a couple of facts, the rest you don’t really think about. You don’t know what’s _not_ being covered. Stuff just gets in your brain. I lived in Manhattan for many years, then New Jersey so I heard the same media day in day out. I had beliefs I had no idea where they came from until this past year when I decided to check things out.

Also, you’re only aware of it if you’ve become political. Most folks vote Dem or Rep because they always have, so it doesn’t matter much to them what side the media takes and they probably don’t even notice. But certain positions are taken as truth because they seem the norm. It’s the ‘way things are’. Like Democrats are for the little guy. Like Republicans are stupid and just get in the way.

You know how someone’s name comes up and you blurt out ‘well, he’s a jerk’ or something? Now every time I catch myself opening my mouth like that I stop and ask myself ‘How do I know that?’ And the answer is that I don’t…my certain knowledge came only from the water I swam in for so many years.

The media praised certain types of people and withheld praise from others. I did the same. One doesn’t even notice, just accepts and shrugs.

Cain

“Final point on this Kerry issue: so a bunch of Vietnam Vets went up on stage with him at the Convention as his “band of brothers”. Another bunch of vets are coming out now and saying that Kerry’s a fraud.”

Yes, your initial reaction will depend on which ’side’ you’re on. But the least one should do is attempt to be intellectually honest and ask for the release of the records. A bunch of fellows led by an experienced and well-respected attorney wouldn’t be putting themselves in such a dangerous position if they didn’t believe what they are claiming is true. So let’s find out. Cambodia in Christmas was a lie. Is there anything else?

I could say, that at the very least it’s important because the job at stake is the most powerful job on the planet and we’d better be damned sure we’re not making a mistake. But I won’t. That would sound condescending, like you couldn’t figure that out for yourself.

Fresh Air

“I would not be pleased to be a New York Times stockholder right now.”

The thought crossed my mind that if Kerry manages to pull it off, this side of the blogosphere should de-link and not report or comment on the major papers and Sixty Minutes, etc.

It’s a dumb idea for a few reasons (there goes all the fun of correcting them). But I couldn’t help myself.

Jerry

“There is a direct link between that 1986 speech and Kerry’s ideas on how to deal with global terrorism and nuclear proliferation and that is the real story behind his Christmas in Cambodia lie.”

That’s the best description of it I’ve seen. Right on.

Charlie

Wow. I’m saving those posts. I’m just learning to pick out the fallacies you see so clearly and you’re a big big help. It’s hard for people to do that, which is why the MSM gets away with so much crap. The populous isn’t stupid, just lazy.

Dennis

I just love how Cheney has become a verb! LOL

Aug 13, 2004 - 3:58 pm 260. Cain:

Dennis,

Chill out. How’s that for another lefty communist statement? Maybe it’s something in the water out here in California. But I’ve exchanged “peace” with everyone I’ve met, and haven’t yet encountered hostility. I’m quite sure the use of “peace” doesn’t depend on party registration.

But what do I know? Maybe half the people I’ve met quietly seethe at hearing “peace”. Maybe such paranoid small-minded conservatives are everywhere. Perhaps I’ve just been naive.

Ah, good old anti-hippie hostility. What happened, man? A hippie steal your woman sometime? Pass you a bad joint at a party? Said something insulting about your god, Ronald Reagan?

I come from a part of the country where hippies aren’t so viciously excoriated. And we’re doing fine. We still have free enterprise, last time I checked. We still don’t give away “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

More seriously, I find this aversion to peace pretty astounding. President Bush must be delighted to know that there are a whole lot of people out there that feel quite comforted by a perpetual state of war. Because that’s what this war on terror is, perpetual. Ask the people in Guantanamo Bay who sit in a prison cell without counsel.

His administration knows that many Americans judge “success” by the number of foreign countries we occupy. That if we keep exhibiting “superior firepower” in our military operations, we’re going to somehow win the war on terror. It’s asinine, folks.

And, personally, I’d much rather keep the company of peace-loving hippies than bitter, angry, small men with sticks the size of missiles up their asses.

Peace and love from Cain

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:04 pm 261. Rick Ballard:

“FWIW, isn’t Bush the first President since Hoover to end his term with a net job loss–over a million jobs!”

FWIW didn’t John Kerry’s first wife claim he was a serial adulterer in the divorce? I know I heard it somewhere but I just don’t have time to look it up. And didn’t his annulment effectively bastardize his lovely dayghters? Now, I know that’s true because it’s the practical effect of an annulment.

I’l bet I can come up with a couple dozen other Kerry tidbits if no one minds lack of source or coherent relation to the thread.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:10 pm 262. hollywood:

Charlie (Colorado),

“There really is no solution to it that doesn’t involve either some form of privatization — so the money can be invested — or that eventually doesn’t go broke.”

Now I see why Bush is against abortion. He wants to breed us out of the SSA quagmire.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:17 pm 263. Renzo:

Marvelous, a feeding frenzy. The trolls are in exstasy.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:22 pm 264. Skookumchuk:

Rick:

I guess I just don’t have it in me to respond to them with such vigor. I mean, bravo and all that, but frankly I just don’t see how you do it.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:23 pm 265. hollywood:

Mr. Ballard,

“I’l bet I can come up with a couple dozen other Kerry tidbits if no one minds lack of source or coherent relation to the thread.”

When you were busy calling Cain or someone names, we started talking about the budget/economy. I don’t have an immediate source on the job loss figures and the Hoover comparison, but I have read this several (suspect in your mind, I know) places. See if you an come up with something to counter it. Here’s one of my sources: http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/040810.html

Hmmm. Looks like the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:24 pm 266. PeterUK:

Rick,

Do the Bureau of Labour statistics include those living at home on their partners income?

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:39 pm 267. Terrye:

Hollywood:

If presidents actually controlled the number of jobs in the economy the over all rate of emplyoment would never be above 3%. However, to compare this economy to the Great Depression and Hoover is really silly. As far as that is concerned the Depression was a world wide phenomenon as are most huge economic changes.

My Grandparents lost their farm in Oklahoma and went to California with hundreds of thousands of other people to work in migrant camps.

My father in law Al had to have his teeth out at aged 15 and could not afford anasthetic and so the dentist tied Al’s hands down, poured cheap whiskey down his throat and pulled out half his teeth. Al paid the man with a free paper every day. He was a newspaper boy in Cincinnati,Ohio. This too happened after Hoover left office.

Hoover for his part had a history as a philanthropist and from 1916 to 1920 he ran the largest relief effort in history and is credited with feeding tens of millions of Europeans and Russians who would otherwise have faced starvation. This was where his real talent lay. At the time he was not even a member of either political party.

My point is it ain’t that simple. More people are working now than have ever worked in this country. The churn in this economy is about two million jobs a month. There are about 285 million of us. The recession and the attack took a lot out of the economy. At least the Republicans acknowledge that. The Democrats treat 9/11 like some unpleasantness in Manhattan that should not have had any real impact one way or the other. This attitude is either disingenous or dumb. I am not sure which.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:41 pm 268. PeterUK:

The Kerry scandal must be causing eddies under that bridge,BTW was his experience seared into his memory or merely blow dried onto it?

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:44 pm 269. Rick Ballard:

Ms. Wood,

One could of course look at the actual BLS job report for January 2001 here, and then compare it to the BLS job report for July 2004 here and note that there 3.7 million more people employed today than in January ‘04.

Did you know that Kerry had to mooch off of friends after his first wife threw him out? A sitting Senator and he was so badly overdrawn he was sleeping on peoples couches. Who would have thought. Of course, then he bagged another heiress and all was right in the world.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:47 pm 270. Terrye:

And as far as Social security is concerned it together with the medicare tax takes more out of my check than income taxes do.

I think this will have to be reformed. It would be ncie if Dems would be part of that process rather than just scaring old people and telling them the big bad Republcians are going to take away their benefits and let them starve in a gutter.

Now would the party that tries to compare Bush to Hoover actually stoop to scaring old people and practicing demagoguery rather than work to come up with a way to save social security and ease the burden on the working young?

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:51 pm 271. Fresh Air:

Hollywood–

Your post about job losses is stupid. Bill Clinton delivered a country on the cusp of recession to George Bush. Nine months later, the WTC attacks took $54 billion out of the New York economy and untold billions out of commercial aviation. The attacks set back the economy several months even assuming the best case.

The Bush tax cuts, coupled with standard recuperation time and return to relative normalcy in the aviation industry have turned the economy around. This business of attributing job creation or job loss to presidents is largely without foundation, as WichitaBoy has already nicely pointed out.

Besides, your comment relates to payroll jobs, a measure that fails to capture the fundamental shift in the nature of the U.S. economy since 2000. Thanks to large severance packages, stock market gains and corporate layoffs, hundreds of thousands of people are now working for themselves in unprecedented numbers. The number of LLCs created in Illinois, for example, was 40% greater in 2003 than in 2002. Emphasis on payroll data, as Catherine’s favorite author Walter Russell Mead would say, is Fordian thinking.

The future is what counts. We have low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, improving consumer confidence, tremendously impressive productivity and a booming manufacturing sector (and no Smoot-Hawley tariff).

I’m sorry, a comparison with Herbert Hoover in any respect is specious on its face.

Aug 13, 2004 - 4:52 pm 272. Rick Ballard:

FA,

You can just abbreviate it to, “Your post is stupid” and save billions of pixels all over the world. Alternatively, everyone responding to Ms. Wood or Cain can add a “Did you hear… about John Kerry” using the same standard of proof that they use. Kerry obviously enjoys fiction, so I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.

Peter,

It’s sort of entertaining to watch the challenged attempting that which is beyond their competence. The fact that the futility of their efforts just hasn’t sunk in yet indicates the extent of their limitations. One trick ponies.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:01 pm 273. Sandy P:

OH#)@@#%&)#*%)(#%*

I lost my post.

Steve Verdon’s starting to talk about who pays more. I think those numbers are bogus and I say so there, but I’m sure my argument’s not nuanced enough. And on Brit Hume the panel was discussing same, interesting Barnes said 2005 numbers lowered the MC burden.

Jobs up over 3m since 2000.

Tax receips up $30-$40 billion so far this year.

Have you ever considered, Holly, sole proprietorships in all this non-job creation? Poke around Bill Hobbs’s site, he’s done your work for you – and kind of explains some of those uninsureds we were discussing. As Fresh Air also pointed out.

Start reading Econopundit and Carnival of the Capitalists.

As to more debt – http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/04/01/poole.pdf

A short paper – A Perspective on US International Capital Flows.

Fortunately for US, the Saudis said the Euro’s not ready for prime time, they lost $200 Bill.

hehehehehehehehehe – around 06/04, IIRC in the brit papers.

The Olympics are on, I have a house to clean cos I’ve been sitting here all day.

Good night.

You’ve got homework, Holly, better get cracking. You need a little more nuance.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:02 pm 274. penwil:

This is why I love this blog so much. People like Hollywood and Cain come in here and trot out the latest empty Democratic talking points, and then just get massacred with facts.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:08 pm 275. jerry:

Cain:

I am going give you opportunity to tell us what you are for not what you see wrong. Tell us what your approach is to fighting Radical Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors. It’s serious question and I be interested in your approach and the assumption underlying that approach.

Thanks.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:12 pm 276. Renzo:

They don’t care about the facts.

They come here to push buttons and watch you dance.

Mr. Ballard explained the tactic of keeping you on defence a couple of months ago.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:14 pm 277. Renzo:

Sorry…..defense

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:16 pm 278. Rick Ballard:

Terrye,

I really enjoy your posts. The stories add a lot to the general discussion.

Penwil,

Try and find a post by them that gives the slightest semblance of a reason to vote for Kerry. I’m amazed that they haven’t figured out that this tactic of attacking Bush is done. Those that are dumb enough to buy in have bought in. Going forward it will take a new tactic.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:19 pm 279. Knucklehead:

In January of 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in as POTUS for his first term, the US labor force was 142.828 million people of whom 136.181 million were employed and 6.647 million were unemployed. Let’s completely ignore which way the economy was headed at that point in time (hint: the wrong direction)

As of July 2004 the US labor force was 149.217 million people of whom 140.700 million were employed and 8.518 million were unemployed. Lets completely ignore which way the economy is headed.

That means that between Jan. 2001 and Jul. 2004 the labor force has grown by 6.389 million people. In the same time period the number of people employed has grown by 4.519 million. The number of unemployed people has grown by 1.871 million people. Perhaps my math is all fuzzy, but that sure seems like a net growth in employment of 2.648 million.

How that comes out as a “net loss” of jobs is an exercise I’ll have to leave to someone else – I’m just not mathematically creative enough.

Source

In 1930 (sorry, the best I’ve found is 10 year increments on historical data, but this was the beginning of the Great Depression) The total population of the US was 122.288 million (27 million less PEOPLE than we have in today in the labor force). 48.589 million people were “GAINFUL WORKERS” and 2.420 million people were “PERSONS OUT OF A JOB, ABLE TO”

Source

The population today is 293.974 million (Source

Today the labor force is apparently 50.7% of the population. In 1930 the “labor force” (using GAINFUL WORKERS + OUT OF JOB, ABLE = 51.009 million) was apparently 41.7% of the population. I don’t have enough time or inclination (and probably not enough skill) to explain the 10% difference in percent of population that is part of the labor force. I suppose it is women in the work force, failure to previously count “children” who worked backed in 1930, “able” is a different thing today, and almost certainly something to do with not counting minorities. But it does suggest that we expect more of us to be working these days and, therefore, we are more “demanding” when it comes to what portion of us are employed.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:20 pm 280. Rick Ballard:

Renzo,

As long as it’s 6′ 3-strand barbwire, keeping ‘em on de fence works just fine for me.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:21 pm 281. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood at 3:04-

As for ad hominem arguments, I just try to file em under Dennis.

Hollywood at 4:17-

Now I see why Bush is against abortion. He wants to breed us out of the SSA quagmire.

Duh.

Now what in the world would cause me to engage in an ad hominem on your intelligence?

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:28 pm 282. Renzo:

“As long as it’s 6′ 3-strand barbwire, keeping ‘em on de fence works just fine for me.”

LOL

Txs for giving me the out.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:34 pm 283. DennisThePeasant:

Cain speaks, man-

More seriously, I find this aversion to peace pretty astounding. President Bush must be delighted to know that there are a whole lot of people out there that feel quite comforted by a perpetual state of war. Because that’s what this war on terror is, perpetual. Ask the people in Guantanamo Bay who sit in a prison cell without counsel.

This is more seriously? Than what?

Are you and Hollywood racing each other?

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:37 pm 284. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood: FWIW, isn’t Bush the first President since Hoover to end his term with a net job loss–over a million jobs! And aren’t the new jobs that are being created paying an average of $9,000 per annum less than the lost jobs? Doesn’t sound good for revenue to me. Like terrye says, “The math is the math.”

“Knucklehead”:In January of 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in as POTUS for his first term, the US labor force was 142.828 million people of whom 136.181 million were employed and 6.647 million were unemployed. Let’s completely ignore which way the economy was headed at that point in time (hint: the wrong direction)

As of July 2004 the US labor force was 149.217 million people of whom 140.700 million were employed and 8.518 million were unemployed. Lets completely ignore which way the economy is headed.

That means that between Jan. 2001 and Jul. 2004 the labor force has grown by 6.389 million people. In the same time period the number of people employed has grown by 4.519 million. The number of unemployed people has grown by 1.871 million people. Perhaps my math is all fuzzy, but that sure seems like a net growth in employment of 2.648 million.

As you see, Hollywood, the “net job loss” is an increase in the number of unemployed, caused by the growth in available jobs not growing as fast as the number of potential job holders. Calling this a “net job loss” is another one of those equivocations; sounds great in theory, doesn’t stand up well when examined.

You might also want to look into the differences between the “households with jobs” versus “employment” figures.

You might also look into the difference between your “didn’t I hear” versus Knuck’s use of links.

I’d love to see a reasonable source for the $9000 thing: I’ve heard it several times, but I’ve never seen it sourced.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:39 pm 285. Terrye:

Rick:

Thanks.

I would think another difference in today’s economy would be farm and non farm employment. Back then a significant number of people lived and worked on farms. Today rural America is losing population in terms of percentage of the whole. How you gonna keep em down on the farm…

The economy is changing and I think the means of keeping track of these things tends to lag.

But I think all this talk of tax hikes and job losses can be a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. It makes investors nervous and then they don’t want to expand and then things really do slow down. Just look at Wall Street. nervous ninnies. I think their greatest fear is win by Kerry.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:39 pm 286. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, Syl, by the way, thanks for the kind words, but “I stand on the shoulders of giants”. The blogosphere is turning into this amazing resource; read Econopundit, read Steve Verdon’s blog — which has what looks like a very nice article on the current CBO tax story — and follow some of their links. Arnold Kling’s Econolog is also good.

I started reading those because, frankly, I couldn’t figure out how economics was supposed to work, when I could nearly invariably find economists who would make exactly opposite predictions for any question.

(Harry Truman, famously, wanted a one-armed economist so they couldn’t tell him “on the other hand.”)

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:47 pm 287. PeterUK:

Time for an appropriate song for John Kerry supporters,”How High’s the Water Mama?”

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:47 pm 288. sammy small:

I notice a pronounced trend coming from those in the Kerry camp. They seem to suffer from a syndrome one might call projection. They seem so comfortable with twisting facts, quoting data out of context, outright lying, ad hominem attacks, and blasting all bad news as politically timed attacks…its no wonder that they think that Bush supporters do the same. They have incorporated these tenets and “just swim in the water” like its normal for everyone. But they are just drinking their own bath water. That is also why they are so comfortable with Kerry. He embodies all of these bad traits.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:47 pm 289. DennisThePeasant:

Is it just me, or have any of the rest of you felt the dampy, sticky presence of lil joe floating around this site today?

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:48 pm 290. PeterUK:

No Dennis,its just nostalgia.BTW there is a plant called Trollius, a little yellow doodah that grows in boggy ground.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:52 pm 291. Terrye:

Something I have wondered about is the practice of letting people stay on unemployment. My business is looking for people right now and we are having problems getting enough people to work. Nobody wants to get a job until their unemployment runs out or they are just not somebody we want to hire.

Once upon a time when you were on unemployment they would find you a job. The unemployemnt office would send you out on interviews and if you could get a job then you had to take it.

Is this just Indiana or has it changed everywhere?

As for the $9,000 that is what they have been claming for years. The new jobs are always said to lower paying. I really don’t know if that is true or not.

We had to hire people from Poland and the Phillipines for therapist jobs making $25 an hour. Health care jobs pay pretty well and are understaffed. I know some people can not take the time and money to be retrained, they need to work and they need to work now and in some areas jobs are very hard to find. I myself do not have advanced training, after I left the farm I needed to work asap and could not take four more years off to go back to school. I just have my doubts that the Presdient of the United States is really all that important to this particular process.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:55 pm 292. DennisThePeasant:

Peter-

I dunno. They could buy Quadrophenia and get both Sea and Sand and Drowned. Two for one and back to back.

Aug 13, 2004 - 5:59 pm 293. Terrye:

Dennis:

You sweet thing. I don’t care what they say, you are just a big old teddy bear of a CPA.

In truth when I saw Cain lamenting the fact that those poor babies in Gitmo were languishing without the benefit of council I thought joseph or his twin is here.

Poor terrorists. Maybe those nasty soldiers should have allowed them to die with honor and just shot them.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:02 pm 294. Terrye:

Joseph won’t be here for awhile. Stargate is on.

I kinda like Stargate myself.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:05 pm 295. DennisThePeasant:

Peter-

A Bonzo Dog doodah?

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:05 pm 296. JBR:

PeterUK: If we’re looking for an appropriate song for Kerry supporters, how about “What a Fool Believes” by the Doobie Brothers?

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:09 pm 297. DennisThePeasant:

Terrye-

I am cuddly in an iguana-ish sort of way.

Personally, I liked Hippy-Dippy Cain’s perpetual war thingee. Evidently he had some real good weed in September, 2001 and missed the events on the other coast.

On a completely unrelated topic, can any of my fellow Mid-Westerners explain to me why so many of you see (or hear) a Californian and immediately think Airhead? I don’t get it, personally.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:15 pm 298. Knucklehead:

Terrye,

Good points. I know several people in the trades (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) and a few others who have established their own businesses and in every case (not a statistically significant number and geographically limited) who claim that the ONLY thing stopping them from growing their businesses, making more money, and hiring more people, is an inability to find reliable and willing workers.

My electrical contractor buddy swears he could put 4 additional trucks out and hire six additional people if he could find people who would show up and work when they do. And he’ll gladly take reasonably bright kids and all they have to do is show up and follow directions and he’ll teach them the trade at $19/hr. while they apprentice. Qualified, unqualified, doesn’t matter. At this point a willingness to work, an IQ above that of a turnip, and no substance abuse problems and he’d be happy.

This seems to be reasonably consistent across privately owned trade businesses and is similar. Anyone around where I live who needs trades people quickly begins wondering why there are so few.

I ran into a guy (construction contractor) a few months back at the local Barnes and Noble and he was buying material to learn to speak Spanish. Why? He couldn’t find reliable workers other than Mexicans and he’d given up trying and decided it would be easier and more profitable to just learn Spanish. He swears it wasn’t a matter of hourly wages (he could make and pay good money) and really was a matter of stay in businees hiring Mexicans or go out of business due to lack of workers. No kidding.

Both the left and right of the protectionist and isolationist spectrum scream bloody murder if anyone tells them jobs are going wanting and that’s the primary reason Mexicans are streaming across the borders, but there’s some level of truth to it. Mexicans will cut lawns for $12/hr and US kids won’t. Can’t pay much more than that to cut lawns. Drive the wage for cutting lawns up to whatever US kids want (is there such a number?) and there won’t be jobs cutting lawns ’cause people will go back to taking the time and trouble and expense to keep their own mower and do it themselves. But you can’t talk about painful realities to some folks – they just want The President to “fix it” and they’ll keeping hating presidents until “its fixed” and they’ll never, in their lifetimes, see it “fixed” ’cause they can’t have what they’re asking for (even if they actually had some clue what it is they want).

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:20 pm 299. DennisThePeasant:

JBR-

What about the theme to Princess Bride?

I mean, it does appear we are dealing with the Dread Pirate Roberts.

I can hear Kerry getting his double top secret sailing orders from LBJ himself (or was it Nixon?):

“Have fun storming Cambodia!”

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:24 pm 300. PeterUK:

If you wish Dennis,a little light entertainment is good for the garden.

Terrye,they can’t possibly shoot terrorists, they look too much like hippies,too traumatic for the troops.The trouble with Joseph is that he thought he could get through Stargate,but as we know he doesn’t need one.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:30 pm 301. Charlie (Colorado):

You know, it’s probably not fair to smack Hollywood twice for the same dumb statement, but I can’t resist…

Hollywood: FWIW, isn’t Bush the first President since Hoover to end his term with a net job loss–over a million jobs! And aren’t the new jobs that are being created paying an average of $9,000 per annum less than the lost jobs? Doesn’t sound good for revenue to me. Like terrye says, “The math is the math.”

… but this actually (it occurs to me) is a perfect example of what I was talking about. See, I started out by making the statement that certain consequences followed from dE/dt > dR/dt where E and R are expenditures and revenues respectively. Now, this is a statement that can be evaluated in itself: either it’s true or not.

But notice — Hollywood didn’t actually argue the point, he simply echoed another talking point: Hollywood answered by saying he’d heard that tax revenues were way down. Or was it spending, he didn’t remember? Anyway, it didn’t sound good for revenue.

Now, it took 30 seconds of Googling to find this:

The US budget deficit will hit a record high of $445bn(ÔøΩ244bn) this year, according to White House projections.

It will rise from $375bn(ÔøΩ205bn) in 2003, the Bush administration forecast, citing the war on terror and economic downturn as contributory factors.

The forecast is, however, lower than a $521bn figure projected in February, an improvement the White House put down to better than expected tax receipts.

I’ll admit that might have actually cited this, but since Hollywood hadn’t cited a source, and I was quite certain of what I’d read, I didn’t. (And sure enough, when we look at it, I was right. Preen.)

Again, Hollywood doesn’t argue the point; instead pulls out the “million-zillion jobs lost” talking point. Another one easily demolished, as seen above.

(Oh, and the “$9000 less” thing, which I’ve seen disputed, but frankly I’ve never seen anyone source it to anything but some Democrat’s talking points anyway.)

but the thing is, I don’t think these are meant to be arguments. They’re literally shibboleths, and while I’m a Buddhist, I’m also a Freemason (insert mysterious music here) and I remember the story (Judges 12:5-6):

[5] And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;

[6] Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

It’s not something you say because you think it makes sense; it’s something you say to prove you’re a right-thinking, true Democrat, and not an Ephraimite at all.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:40 pm 302. John Lynch:

DtP

Airheads? Nah.

The left coast has rational people. Just a low percentage of them. In absolute numbers, they probably have as many as we in Ohio.

It’s like that top 2% thing.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:41 pm 303. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, Terrye — these are anecdotes (hah, spelled it right that time!) and I make no claims beyond that, but here’s what I see here in Colorado:

(1) I’ve got 74 job postings in my email since Wednesday mid-afternoon, when I last cleaned it out, something like four times as many as I would have seen when I was looking at the start of the year;

(2) I would hire another hot Microsoft GUI programmer in a minute if I could find one;

(3) I lost a bidding war for one just the other day;

(4) All the local grocery stores and the like are putting out big red “NOW HIRING” signs.

From this I infer, weakly, that 5.5 percent is pretty darn near full employment.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:46 pm 304. Knucklehead:

Rick, Renzo, DtP:

Sometimes its just fun to see what one can track down and hold up and shine in the eyes of the memebots. What the heck, ain’t doin’ nuttin’ but sippin’ and watchin’ the Cards beat the Braves.

Is anyone noticing that the bots have spun themselves back around to the moronic Worst Jobs Performance Since Hoover stuff?

Sometimes I think we’re wearing them out! They’ve all but given up trying to defend Dear John on the Party Boat in Cambodia stuff. I’m almost feeling sorry for the poor, deluded fools who keep trying. I’ve just started looking at some of the Winter Soldier stuff and if the MSM can hold the Stuffed Hairdo up through Round Two they are magicians – I’m beginning to believe the MSMdopes bit off more than they can chew this time. The Loon in the Hat is just too much heavy lifting.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:47 pm 305. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, Hollywood, would you please pick a gender? I’m tired of dancing around the third-person pronoun issue.

In some ways, Japanese is so much easier.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:48 pm 306. John Lynch:

Knuck

The old version of this meme used to be “all the new jobs are flipping burgers.” There is even a current Kerry ad alluding to that. This was reinforcement of the “new jobs pay less” argument.

In fact, the jobs report shows the industry SIC of the new hires. The hospitality segment (which includes restaurants) is not where the current growth is. It is largely service, with some – hold on – growth in manufacturing.

It is probably supportable that the new jobs are paying less. When one loses a job, one will take a lower paying job. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – economically speaking – as it improves productivity numbers, and improves business vitality.

I can speak to programmers in my town who no longer are being paid 90K, but had to take jobs in the 80s. I think it is a real loss of top end programming salaries, and also a loss of seniority in their new jobs.

I don’t think any of them are unhappy about their new jobs.

Aug 13, 2004 - 6:55 pm 307. Katherine:

Dennis asks: ìOn a completely unrelated topic, can any of my fellow Mid-Westerners explain to me why so many of you see (or hear) a Californian and immediately think Airhead ?î

Experience?

We both have airheads and heavy thinkers in spades, that is part of the problem. Milton Friedman lives in San Fran. Victor Davis Hanson still has a this family farm near Fresno. But they are not terribly good at making headlines. On the other hand we are immediately informed if Miss Streisand formulates new foreign policy.

All:

I am too tired today to participate, but I do enjoy this tread. Fun, fun, fun!

I will make only one observation regarding projected deficits. If anyone would bother to notice, the projections change every quarter, and they are never, ever correct (if there was some lucky hit in the past, pls let me know). Projections are based on static, not dynamic economic models i.e. they never take into account the changes in economic activity (either upwards or downwards) or varying trends in economy in general. So, they mostly serve as nothing better but a political tool to prove whatever points anybody wants to prove at a given time. Incidentally, static economic models are also at the bottom of the gloomy pronouncements that tax cuts reduce government revenues, because these models also donít take into account the effects of changes in tax rates on overall health and growth of economy.

Why this remains such a mystery to so many people is mind-boggling. In simple terms, would anyone rather own 5% of a corporation worth 100 million dollars or 50% of a corporation worth 1 million?

And let us not forget that if higher taxes were ever to stimulate growth, EU economies would be overtaking ours, and Soviet Union, not the US would be now the “hyperpower”.

For some hard data on effects on tax cuts on growth of GDP, income tax revenue, and unemployment rate you can check out article written by Arthur Laffer, who also introduced a concept of a Laffer Curve.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

I will only quote this:

ìTestifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kennedy’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:

What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today’s terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.î

If anyone wants to learn something new on any subject ñ that includes the economy ñ one should not treat the NYT as the authoritative trade journal.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:41 pm 308. Knucklehead:

John Lynch,

The old version of this meme used to be “all the new jobs are flipping burgers.” There is even a current Kerry ad alluding to that.

This is basically the “good manufacturing jobs” vs. the “bad service jobs” argument. Anytime I try to drill down on this about all I can find out is that there are a lot of people who want to work in something that sorta resembles a factory where stuff comes in, gets changed or combined in various ways, and goes back out as something else. Its rarely manufacturing, maybe assembly, sometimes just pushing some stuff through some sort of machine. Yet somehow it qualifies as a “good job”.

And what’s wrong with the despicable “service jobs”? As far as I can figure this out it rarely has anything to do with what it pays or the benefits. It often has more to do with the the idea that they might have to speak to people other than the same ones they see every day and be pleasant to “customers” and, heaven forbid, figure out what somebody is interested in buying.

Not all that long ago I was listening to a guy bemoan the fact that there aren’t any TV factories left in the US. I don’t know if that’s true or not but I sure don’t see how it matters much. Is there some shortage of TVs or is making TVs some sort of wonderful job? I don’t know a single person who doesn’t have all the TVs their heart desires. If Koreans or whomever what to build TVs and sell them to us at prices nobody could have imagined ten years ago, how does that harm us? When all 290 million of us finally have two TVs each, who will lose jobs because the US market for TVs collapses?

I sometimes hear this expressed in the more sophisticated “import vs. export economy” argument. I wish I knew more about economics because I just don’t get how one is so obviously better than the other. As far as I can tell recessions hit export economies harder and longer than they our import economy. Since we’re doing all the importing it seems to me that when we stop buying its the other guy who gets hurt.

The response to this seems to be that we’re sending all our money elsewhere. Yeah, so, and they send us their TVs and dishwashers for what seem like really low amounts of money. Make something they want and they’ll send the money back. It just don’t seem like rocket science to me.

We have “manufacturing” in here as a big portion of the economy. We have exports that, last time I bothered to go look it up, put us at or very near the top of the world’s exporters. And when it comes to exporting “services” we’re apparently kicking butt six days a week and twice on Sundays.

I just don’t follow the Moonbat-memebot arguments.

More later. I’d really like to play some Roger’s Place ping-pong with you regarding the “IT Market” space and The Perfect Storm that crashed USS Irrational Exuberance on the reef. If you go back to 1999 as anyone with any responsibility for hiring you were getting whipped like a galley slave to hire people. You couldn’t find them fast enough and everyone on the job market was was commanding pretty incredible salaries – 50 and even 60K right out of college. Twelve or eighteem months later if you had anything to do with firing you were getting whipped like a galley slave to figure out which two people had to go to save the other eight. Nuttin’ like running the ol’ Lifeboat Exercise in for real.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:47 pm 309. Roberts:

Actually its amusing to see Hollywood try to post statistics ( and fail ) when in fact Hollywood got that false “net job loss” statistic from Krugman who made it up from whole cloth and got called on it months ago.

The simple fact is that the total employment from the Household Survey by the BLS is larger today ( 139.7 million in July of 2004 ) than its ever been. Notice that I use links to real BLS statistics. Go to this link, check the second box to get total employment and see that people who are repeating this “net job loss” crap are pulling the numbers from their hindend.

Aug 13, 2004 - 7:59 pm 310. Jamie Irons:

JBR, as to a JFK theme song…

For some reason today I couldn’t get out of my head a sixties song, a really bad one, and forgive me, I can’t recall the “artist,” but the song’s refrain was:

Secret ay-gent man,

Secret ay-yay-gent man,–

They’ve given you a number,

And taken away your name…

Jamie Irons

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:00 pm 311. Knucklehead:

Katherine,

On the other hand we are immediately informed if Miss Streisand formulates new foreign policy.

Thanks for that laugh! Really, it felt good. Why anyone belives Babs has a clue about anything other than Living Large and singing and reading scripts is beyond me.

Back here on the Right Coast we have The Boss (and are crawling with other Limo Liberals of various sorts). My youngest brat is a bit older than his daughter but they both like riding horses and wound up at the same horse shows a few times. I don’t begrudge or envy the guy anything, he’s earned what he has as far as I know. But his brat arrives with the personal trainer and the $25K pony and the tailored riding clothes. I just don’t believe the guy has any connection with the Little People who are doing stuff like half-leasing and driving the old rattle trap an extra hundred thousand miles to give their kids a similar experience. I’m solidly in the Laura Ingraham Shut Up and Sing camp. Babs, the Baldwin Bros, and The Boss don’t know jack about making ends meet anymore, and haven’t for a dang long time. If they want to cough up taxes through all their oriffices then they should go ahead and do so and leave me the heck out of it.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:02 pm 312. Terrye:

Knucklehead:

I gotta tell you $19 an hour is very good around here. In fact $12 an hour is not considered a terrible wage. I would love to make 90k but in truth that kind of money is not realistic for most of us whoever the president may be. I think people need to rediscover the trades. There is a market for the work and not everybody is cut out for an MBA.

I wasted a lot of years on the farm believing the Dems who said they would save the family farm. The sad thing about being a farmer and losing it has to do with the fact that a farmer is not something you do, it is something you are. I cried like a baby when I finally sold my cows. I liked them better than most people I know and in truth they were more useful.

Today they are still making that promise. No doubt Tom Harkin will be making that promise to the last farmer in Iowa.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:05 pm 313. Jamie Irons:

Welll, I guess Roger didn’t call this the Voyage from Hell thread for nothing…

Sure wish I had a terrorist or two to torment. Are they hiring in Gitmo?

More seriously, Charlie (Colorado):

Long ago (12:57 PM today) you wrote:

Oh, and by the way, as far as deficits go — a very little mathematical analysis will show you that so long as the rate of growth of expenditures is less than the rate of growth of revenues, any deficit (and any debt) will eventually go away.

On the other hand, so long as the rate of growth of expenditures is greater than the rate of growth of revenues, you will always have deficits unto bankruptcy.

It’s amazing how much unnecesssary suffering flows from not understanding the exponential function, that simple wonder whose rate of change at every point is equal to its value at that point!

Jamie Irons

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:18 pm 314. John Lynch:

Knuck

I’d enjoy a discussion on jobs, job creation, and current metrics.

Most of the current measurements deal with a 60s type economy where manufacturing was king and service was janitorial.

If you have ever filled out unemployment insurance forms for a corporation’s filing, you would see absolutely ridiculous job classification categories.

It is related, but not the same, as Katherine’s comment about projections. You can use the statistics for political arguments, but not for real analysis in today?s economy.

Let’s play ping-pong on this subject sometime when a thread is close enough to find this on-topic.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:18 pm 315. Terrye:

Oh well entertainment people live in another universe. Really. I know people who play in bands who have to wait tables while some hot shot like Springsteen shoots off his mouth. Life in the US has been a real drag for the Boss.

Outsourcing? Cold Mountain was shot in Kosovo because shooting it here in the good ol US or A costs too much money. They outsourced a movie about the American Civil War for Chrisake. My guess is they could not make it here and pay the stars the kind of money they have grown accustomed to.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:22 pm 316. Knucklehead:

Terrye,

$19/hr ain’t bad around here either, especially if you have no particular marketable skill other than a willingness and ability to work and learn.

One thing I think Americans have completely lost track of is regional differences in cost of living and, correspondingly, what people get paid. Anyone living on either coast between the north and south major cities (call it Boston to DC in the east and San Fran and SD out west) pays through the nose for housing and state and local taxes. Its amounts of money that just doesn’t compute for people in flyover country. This is not something either good or bad in any way, it’s just the way things are. But it doesn’t help with any national level discussions of how to deal with and solve problems. And it extends beyond things like housing and tax burdens. For example, if you live in the NYC metro area (and others) and make enough to own a home and pay your taxes you can write off any hope of qualifying for any financial aid to send your brats to college. Yeah, I know, that’s a bit of crying in my freakin’ merlot, but there’s reality there also.

Folks in flyover country may have every bit, or more, the same standard of living as a coaster does but maintain that on a third (or more) less income. Put the two W-2’s down in front of a Moonbat and they’re gonna think the coaster is one of those greedy rich bastards who BBQs poor kids and old folks at their cocktail parties. And don’t get me started on the NYC “ain’t wantin’ for nuttin’ in their lives” who live in grandfathered rent-controlled comfort and bash us greedy suburbanites who don’t want to pay their fair share.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:33 pm 317. Knucklehead:

John Lynch:

I imagine we won’t get the chance to blather on about such stuff till after the election. And that’s more important at the moment anyway. We can tweak and change and figure out all the domestic stuff once we’ve figured out how to deal with the lunatic Islamofascists who want us to join them in the 14th century.

This thread demonstrates something I find somewhat amusing though. If the Moonbat-memebots would ever stop with their tired old nonsense the nation might just settle down and start having some decent discussions about what ails us and why and how to proceed.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:41 pm 318. hollywood:

Here’s another source you may find more to your liking on the job loss issue. Bottom line: still looks like a loss. Still looks like Hoover. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=114

Jamie Irons, you’re thinking of Johnny Rivers.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:48 pm 319. Knucklehead:

How on earth did you read what you linked to and come up with “Still looks like Hoover”? Its possible that some are correct and you are just a memebot but it also possible that others are correct and you are just dumb.

Aug 13, 2004 - 8:57 pm 320. Jamie Irons:

hollywood, you said:

Jamie Irons, you’re thinking of Johnny Rivers.

Actually, I’m trying not to think of him.

But you are correct, and it’s a rare thing for memory to fail me on a sixties popular song, no matter how forgettable.

Jamie Irons

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:04 pm 321. Terrye:

Hollywood:

If you really want people to go to the trouble of looking at your links you might not want to preface them with silly stuff about Hoover, it just shows your ignorance. I am not trying to be nasty it is just that people were starving, just plain starving back then, not only here but around the world. There was no money and no hope of making any. In fact that is when the South American economies really started to go to hell because the Europeans pulled out their money and their economies collapsed.

So if you have to make comparisons please keep it within the realms of reality. Otherwise you only insult the suffering of the people who had to live through the Great Depression. And that makes you seem kinda vacuous.

I think the economy is in pretty good shape, but whatever the problems I have zero confidence in Kerry’s ability to “fix” anything. And you know what? The MSM feeds us this stuff all the time. It is not as if the Bush haters don’t have ample oppurtunity to get their side out. I could not miss their propaganda if I tried so why would I seek out more?

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:13 pm 322. Knucklehead:

Terrye,

Unfortunately it seems that our erstwhile friend is beyond hope. There is no reasoning with someone who wishes to attempt to compare the world of 2004 with the world or 1929. I think (it took me a while to knuckleheadedly muddle through to the realization) Roger had it precisely correct – Reactionaries. People who, for whatever reason, wish for some return to some fantasy past. Why they long for the days of the Great Depression is, perhaps, a sign of some illness, but that’s for them to deal with.

I’m done. You may be more caring than I am. Good luck.

Aug 13, 2004 - 9:33 pm 323. Katherine:

Knuck ñ

I am happy that I made you laugh!

BTW, if you came out with the insight ìwe send them green pieces of paper and they send us useful items and this is a good thingî by nothing than observationand logical reasoning I will tell you that you are a material for Nobel Prize in economics. No joke. (This also relates to foolishness of hand wringing over trade-deficits. Typically, American trade deficit increases when our economy grows because we the people have more money for buying things, local and foreign).

And you are totally right about the regional differences with respect to cost of living. Few years back we had a winter with lots of rains and mudslides and resulting loses of property. The reporters for national news breathlessly informed the rest of the country that LUXURY houses worth half a million dollars were being destroyed along CA coast. The natives laughed, these ìluxuryî houses were probably nothing more than two bedroom fixer-uppers.

Regarding hourly rate, I pay a guy who helps me with my yard $20/hr, and it is conceded extremely reasonable rate. But then, as one of my gay friends puts it, we in SF do live in a fairyland.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:33 pm 324. Charlie (Colorado):

Dammit, Hollywood, did you even read either anything that we wroite, or the very articles you linked? Did you notice that one of the links at the bottom of the one you linked has the title George Bush As Herbert Hoover? Oh Come On!?

It’s not a very impressive display of rational thought when you don’t even note your citations themselves deny your argument.

Ninny.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:40 pm 325. Katherine:

I really, really hate to break it to you hollywood, but unemployment rate during Hoover years of Great Depression reached 26.3%.

Current unemployment rate is 5.5%. This is probably as close as to full employment as reasonably gets. Wake me up when unemployment rate will reach the unthinkable, 6% will you?

(Which will happen, of course if Kerry wins and manages to implement even half of his tax-hiking, anti-free trade, protectionist, regulatory policies. Under these circumstances I confidently predict that economy will tank in short order. But we survived Carter. Right)

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:52 pm 326. Fresh Air:

I might say this is off-topic, but I’m not sure what the topic of this thread is at this point, assuming it ever had one.

Anyway, here is a great article on Slate entitled “Does the Press Know We’re at War?” Lots of juicy swipes at the MSM! Very un-Slate like. Jacob Weissberg must be on vacation.

Aug 13, 2004 - 10:54 pm 327. Fresh Air:

Back to the economics discussion. Donald Luskin debunks the $9,000 gap:

In the same speech Kerry claimed that the new jobs created during BushÔøΩs first term ÔøΩpay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost.ÔøΩ ThatÔøΩs a lie, too. Any honest economist could have told Kerry that statistics are detailed enough to prove that such a specific claim simply does not exist. Kerry, however, sourced his number from the liberal big-labor-backed think tank, the Economic Policy Institute. The EPIÔøΩs number is based on nothing better than Bureau of Labor Statistics data on changing employment levels in broad industry groups ÔøΩ statistics that say absolutely nothing about the relative value of jobs gained and lost. That $9,000 number might just as well have been pulled from thin air.

Aug 13, 2004 - 11:33 pm 328. Katherine:

One more little statistic regarding current economic situation vs the Hooverian one:

Depression is defined as decline of GDP by more than 10%. Using this definition, between August 1929 and March 1933 the US economy experienced severe depression with GDP declining by almost 33%. Then after a period of some recovery, the economy was hit by another depression of 1937-38, when the GDPís decline reached 18.2%. This second depression may be pretty much attributed to FDRís meddling in the economy, in order to ìsave itî.

The worst recession (defined as less than 10% of GDP decline) in the last 60 years occurred between November 1973 and March 1975 when GDP declined by 4.9%.

In contrast, during the Bush Administration the US GDP grew: in 2001 by 0.8%; 2002, by 1.9%; 2003 by 3%; 2004 QI by 4.5% and QII by 3%.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid

How can anyone can even start comparing Great Depression to current economic situation is beyond my understanding.

I suspect that I am not ìpost-modernî enough.

Aug 14, 2004 - 1:32 am 329. Sandy P:

Oh, Holly, are you going to go against the Germans????

Via David’s Medienkritic:

A new blog with postings on the biased reporting of the German media:

Do You Know Who I Am (DYKWIA)

I found this quote quite interesting:

In “Cowboy Capitalism,” a new book to be released by Cato in September, German journalist Olaf Gersemann writes: “Mostly high-income taxpayers finance the budget in the United States. In fiscal year 2001 almost 65 percent of federal income tax came from the 10 percent of private households with the highest gross income. In Germany, by contrast, the top 10 percent contributed less than half of the intake. Furthermore, the 50 percent of households with lower-than-average incomes contributed almost 9 percent of German income tax revenues whereas they contributed only 4 percent in the United States.”

Sounds like “Lederhosen Capitalism” to me…

—-

Seems the old country still has something to teach us, like how the rich really do stay rich.

Aug 14, 2004 - 1:35 am 330. flenser:

hollywood

“I’m sure somewhere in the rest he mentions that he’s speaking about deficits since 1945″

I see. Did I mention that in 1946 the deficit was 7.6% of GDP? This is still larger than the “record”

deficit that is being attributed to Bush or Reagan.

Hey, I know; why don’t you say “Oh, I mean I’m pretty sure he said it was since 1970″, or whatever.

Are you QUITE sure you are a lawyer? I have to say, I’d avoid you like the plauge if I needed legal counsul.

“As it is, I’m willing to say he [Bush] didn’t do his homework and made some big mistakes”

What is the probability that you, with your razor keen legal mind, will ever get around to saying what, exactly, Bush’s “big mistakes” were? I’m not holding my breath.

Suffice it to say that if Bush has been making “big mistakes”, we need more of them. A few more of his “big mistakes” and the rest of the Axis of Evil will be decommissioned.

Increasing borrowing from the rest of the world; no, I’m not hugely worried. America was a net debtor nation for the entire nineteenth century, and emerged into the twentieth as one of the worlds major powers.

How much debt service can we afford? Please. A lot of thatdebt is held by Americans; that is we are borowing from ourselves. I expect we can afford to do that for quite some time.

The trade deficit is a different matter. Why don’t you bring that up instead?

(It’s pretty bad when I have to coach you on how to make good arguments.)

Aug 14, 2004 - 3:48 am 331. Erik:

Since Germany was mentioned, I thought I’d chip in.

There is a Swedish saying that the only tax bases that are consistent is “Food, Property and Poor People”. Those are the only tax bases that cant leave the country when they are taxed too much…

Even if Sweden confiscated everything earned above $39.000, it still wouldn’t be enough, you’d still need more taxes. People with income over $39K is the top 12,5%, they make 30% of all income and pay around 36% of all income taxes.

As a comparison, 60% are making less than $26K, which is 35% of all total income, and they pay 30% of all income taxes. They also pay 47% of all capital taxes (that’s including property tax)…

http://skatteverket.se/

And I think it’s safe to say that they pay 60% of all taxes on food and gas ($3/gallon). It’s probably more than that, since people with higher income tend to live in cities, and dont have to drive their own car as far to work every day. Imagine people living on a farm, with that gas tax.

Arguing “tax the rich” is just blowing smoke, trying to get the people with lower income to vote for you, thinking they’d make money on it.

Sweden had a tax rate of almost 55% in 2000.

Anyone trying to argue for higher taxes “for the rich” should be forced to use Sweden as an example for their case. Sweden should be their utopia, so it’s interesting that they dont try to argue that..

And anyone trying to argue that those same taxes should be used to pay for “free” National Healthcare should be forced to rely on a national healthcare system for all their medical needs. Or try to make that argument to the relatives of the 15.000 elderly french that died from the heat last summer, while they were in hospital…

They’d also have to explain how come higher taxes dont result in more jobs. “Open” unemplyment is 5.5% in Sweden. Count the people in government programs and it’s 7%. The real total is most likely higher, those statistics are usually “adjusted” a lot. (People are put on medical benefits, so they are noted as “sick” instead of unemployed, young people are told to instead go to college and are then noted as “students”, etc…)

As an observation, I keep hearing the argument that “things will be better in Sweden soon, now that the US economy is really improving”.

Aug 14, 2004 - 6:11 am 332. Erik:

Oh, and someone mentioned upthread that they have a hard time to find programmers in the US.

Sounds like a great argument for outsourcing, there’s plenty to be found around here…

Also lots of people willing to go move the US to work, the biggest problem for Swedes is usually to get a workrelated visa the US…

$80K is a fantasy salary for programmers here…

Aug 14, 2004 - 6:17 am 333. Charlie (Colorado):

Outsourcing? Cold Mountain was shot in Kosovo because shooting it here in the good ol US or A costs too much money. They outsourced a movie about the American Civil War for Chrisake. My guess is they could not make it here and pay the stars the kind of money they have grown accustomed to.

That’s sure a part of it, but the other thing that drives them is that over the years the crafts unions — gaffers, camera operators, electricians, makeup, all that stuff — have put together highly paid contracts with very onerous rules for membership. As a result, it’s a helluva lot cheaper to shoot in Toronto or Vancouver or elsewhere.

Not that it would stop the stars from bitching about union busting in other industries.

Aug 14, 2004 - 8:25 am 334. Fresh Air:

Charlie–

When they try to film in Chicago, producers have to pay tribute to a cadre of West-side union-organized caterers, equipment rental companies, etc. If the production companies try to bring in their own vendors, they find their trucks all have flat tires in the morning and the engines mysteriously won’t start.

Sort of brings a tear to my eye to think about the unions sticking it to the Hollywood producers.

Aug 14, 2004 - 8:48 am 335. Sandy P:

I think this thread should be nominated for Carnival of the Capitalists or another worthy roundup.

Look at what we’ve covered here.

Our major issues. And only a little snarkiness.

It also shows the best of the blogosphere, whoever wrote what a research tool the net was up there was right.

Keep throwing it into the pot, guys and gals, we’re certainly on a journey.

Hope we’ve given each other some things to think about.

I tip my hat, or Roger’s very spiffy one, to all of you.

Me thinks it’s time to make another round of donations, I’ve been sucking up his bandwith. Some time next week Roger, I have a list.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:26 am 336. Knucklehead:

Erik,

This may be a dead thread and you may not pop in here again. But I once saw an article by (almost positive) Astrid Lundgren (the wonderful writer of childrens stories such as the Pippi Longstocking series) where she skewered the Swedish tax system.

IIRC she had to pay something like 103% of her income one year to meet her tax bill. This was years ago when anyone making money (Bjorn Borg, etc) left Sweden because the tax rates were more than confiscatory, they were penal.

Aug 14, 2004 - 12:13 pm 337. Erik:

Knucklehead,

Yeah, Astrid Lindgren wrote that article in the form of a children story about the witch Pomperipossa. Quite a read.

I do believe that was the first serious discussion about the Swedish tax system, that there might be a problem with it. Astrid Lindgren had such a reputation as a wholesome person that noone could really attack her for being “greedy” or “not showing solidarity”, which is the standard PC attack on people that dont agree with the taxes.

Almost all of our athletic stars left the country at that time, Björn Borg, Ingemar Stenmark, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, etc..etc..

In the case of authors and athletes, their income isn’t fixed steady. You win a tournament or write a good book, and you get paid a lot, next year you might not make a dime.

This resulted in almost all their income being treated as marginal income (”extra income”) and taxed that way, so it wasn’t uncommon with taxes over 100%.

The problem with a system with high taxes, as Swedens, is that you have to add all kinds of regulatory devices, which makes it hard to predict the outcome.

It was seen as a revolutionary proposal a few years back when the proposal was put forward that if you work overtime, you should never have to pay more than 50% of that pay in taxes…

I got a pretty hefty bonus from work a few years back, for overperforming and headhunting a new consultant. I had to pay 70% of that bonus in taxes..

Things like that doesn’t really help to get people to work harder…

Aug 14, 2004 - 1:03 pm 338. hollywood:

I thought you all would like the last link better than the Tobias one. I was focusing on this aspect of it:

“It now seems likely that Bush will end his term with the economy employing fewer payroll workers than when he took office, according to most projections by private economists. If that happens, Bush’s critics will be able to say correctly that he’s the first since Hoover to have ended an entire term with a net job loss.”

As for those who feel it’s ludicrous to compare Bush to Hoover, I concede. Hoover was a better human being.

Meanwhile, on the who pays the taxes front, the LA Times offered this today:

“‘The mathematics are clear that for higher-income individuals, the Bush tax cuts produced lower tax burdens, and as a result, the greater fraction of the tax cuts,’ said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former Bush White House economist who heads the Congressional Budget Office. “That’s math.”

“The share of all federal taxes paid by middle-income Americans rose from 10% in 2001 to 10.5% this year, the report [of the nonpartisan CBO]found. But the portion paid by the top one-fifth dropped from 65.3% to 63.5%. And the share paid by the wealthiest 1% dropped from 22.7% to 20.1%.”

Apparently, these cuts weren’t regressive enough for Bush as lately he’s been floating comments about a national sales tax and a flat tax in an effort to “simplify” the tax code.

Aug 14, 2004 - 2:22 pm 339. Erik:

Let me get this straight:

1% of the population pays over 20% of all income tax.

20% of the population pays well over 60% of all income tax.

And your problem with this is that it’s not enough???

Please enlighten me:

How much is enough for you?

Aug 14, 2004 - 3:12 pm 340. hollywood:

Erik,

Maybe the question needs to be asked the other way: how much is enough for them? They seem to keep doing better. Obviously, you can’t just nail a percentage and say, that’s it. It depends on bottom line amounts after FICA, Medicare, etc, etc.

Let’s put it this way, after liberals and even moderates began decrying Bush’s cuts, the GOP claimed the opposition was engaging in class warfare. Warren Buffett then opined, “If this is class warfare, my class is winning.” Clearly, we are not talking about a level playing field.

Aug 14, 2004 - 3:55 pm 341. Syl:

Hollywood

What a bs artist you are: “Apparently, these cuts weren’t regressive enough for Bush as lately he’s been floating comments about a national sales tax and a flat tax in an effort to “simplify” the tax code.”

Bush answers a question by saying ‘that’s interesting’ and you attribute (1) motive and (2) projected policies

What a laugh you are.

And note in that first snippet you quoted they specifically used the word ‘payroll’. So the comparison to Hoover even on jobs dies right there. Payroll is a specific term and refers to companies with a set of characteristics which by law require them to report payroll figures monthly. These payroll figures do not include all workers. The non-payroll workers show up in a different set of BLS data..which is used to determine the actual workforce and unemployment rate.

If you total in ALL workers, not just Payroll, the number of jobs created is more than double on the plus side.

In my experience with people who talk about jobs yet don’t know squat, there is this vision of x number of people being laid off in 2001 who are STILL looking for work in 2004 because payroll jobs don’t match. Oh my 2.1 million people were laid off but only 1.1 million got another job!!

It just don’t work that way. Every month in America 2 to 2 1/2 million people lose their jobs. Every stinking month.

Every month the same number get a new job or are rehired. Sometimes more. Sometimes fewer. Every stinking month.

Besides which every stinking month some people retire and leave the pool of the workforce and some kids get out of school and join the workforce, etc. This rarely balances out.

Add to that the fact that taxcuts encourage people to hunt for work who otherwise might not have. If you’re a homemaker, why spend all those hours working if your takehome isn’t enough. There is some evidence that around 1 million people joined the workforce just because of the taxcuts. And that affects the unemployment rate…which still is going down. Econopundit has some data on that.

Hollywood, what I really think is that you are a mole. You are here specifically to gather information to refute others and use us as unpaid clerks. You play the I-Hate-Bush-He’s-A-Stupid-Monkey so we’ll think you’re on the other side.

Otherwise why the sheep-like parrot postings of the Bush-haters with nothing original from you.

Aug 14, 2004 - 3:56 pm 342. Syl:

Hollywood

“Clearly, we are not talking about a level playing field”

There it is in a nutshell. It’s just not fair. Warren Buffet has a lot of money and I want him to give me some!

Encourage him to give some to a local charity. It will do more direct good for people than giving it to the government.

A rich man only does harm if he keeps his money in his socks. He either spends it (good) or invests it (good) or gives it to charity.

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:06 pm 343. Erik:

Hollywood:

Maybe the question needs to be asked the other way: how much is enough for them? They seem to keep doing better. Obviously, you can’t just nail a percentage and say, that’s it. It depends on bottom line amounts after FICA, Medicare, etc, etc.

“They seem to be doing better”?

Let me repeat:

1% of the population pays over 20% of all income tax.

20% of the population pays well over 60% of all income tax.

To elaborate; the top income holders most likely also pay more than the average in property tax, capital taxes, VATs, etc.. (I figure that is not so different in the US than it is in Sweden)

You’re implying sinister motives for this, that the cuts are rigged because “how much is enough for them?”.

This has nothing to do with some “bottom line”, and/or other taxes/programs. You are clearly arguing that the income tax, as it is now, is totally wrong and unfair.

That makes the question valid, and I’ll repeat it:

How much is enough for you?

How much will it take for you to no longer imply sinister motives behind tax cuts?

Obviously, 1% paying 20% isn’t nearly enough for you, you’re claiming that it’s not even a level playing field, so how much to “level it out” more fairly? 50%? 103%?

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:23 pm 344. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood:

“It now seems likely that Bush will end his term with the economy employing fewer payroll workers than when he took office, according to most projections by private economists. If that happens, Bush’s critics will be able to say correctly that he’s the first since Hoover to have ended an entire term with a net job loss.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In January of 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in as POTUS for his first term, the US labor force was 142.828 million people of whom 136.181 million were employed…. As of July 2004 the US labor force was 149.217 million people of whom 140.700 million were employed.

140.7 million is greater than 136.2 million. Total employment grew between January 2001 and July 2004.

Quotation marks around a misstatement don’t make it more believable, in the face of a quantitative refutation.

Continuing to maintain the falsehood in the face of quantitative refutation — without even adressing it — just makes you look like a putz.

On the other topic: Read Steve Verdon, or even better yet, read the report itself (pdf) on this before you buy anything the LA Times says.

Here are a couple of little hints:

(1) Under the pre-Bush law, this year the top quintile would have been paying 64 percent of the total taxes. Under the Bush law, they pay 63.5 percent.

(2) Under the pre-Bush law, this year the bottom quintile would have paid 1.3 percent of the total tax; under the current law they pay 1.1 percent.

What you aren’t considering — and what Steve doesn’t try to explain, so I will — is that who falls in which income quintile in the CBO method isn’t just a matter of the distribution of incomes alone: it’s distribution of income divided by number of people in the family. This is sensitive to a number of demographic things, and I haven’t worked it all out — it’s a 27 page report, and I’m trying to take the weekend sort of off — but if, for example, the total number of income-earners in the middle quintiles went up, the total amount of tax collected could go up, even though the average tax rate went down (which it did, see page 23 of the report.)

Let’s go back and say that again, for clarity, for emphasis, and because I’m not paying for the bandwidth: although the percentage of total tax paid by the middle quintile went up, the tax rate they paid went down.

This means that while the middle quintile as a collective paid more, each of the individuals in the middle quintile appear to have paid less.

How can this be? I don’t see the figures in the report, but my guess is that using the CBO’s method, the total number of people in that middle quintile went up, probably because they moved out of the upper quintile.

I’ll leave it to you to explain to a $60,000 p.a. police officer why it’s bad that her individual taxes went down.

Now, in fact, the total tax burden for the top quintile went down a little between 2003 and 2004 — half a percent. On the other hand, by 2005 it goes up a full 1 percent. The middle quintile’s share is 10.5 percent in 2004, up from 10.4 percent in 2003 — but in 2005 it’s down10.3 percent.

I don’t know what economists call this, but to this hairy-eared engineer it looks like noise. Random variation.

Random variation that was carefully cherry picked by the press reporting on these results.

Hollywood, I think the point is: think for yourself. I realize precedent is a big deal in the law — but Aristotle’s precedent didn’t make heavy objects fall faster than light ones.

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:28 pm 345. Roberts:

It is amusing that Hollywood hasn’t figured out yet that the actual BLS data – which I linked to – shows that Hollywood hasn’t a clue. That isn’t a surprise of course, because all Hollywood has been doing is repeating a line from Paul Krugman which was debunked months ago.

Krugman is probably the one person who has most completely discredited himself during the last four years. At one time a respected economist, his factually challenged polemic columns in the NYT have reduced him to a laughing stock among those with any actual economic knowledge. Sheesh, in a recent tv program, even a dip like Bill O’Reilly was able to outargue Krugman.

The simple fact remains that Krugman’s talking points as adopted by Hollywood were always false and remain so.

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:45 pm 346. Charlie (Colorado):

By the way, if you go to Steve Verdon’s site, make sure to read the comments to that posting. Also, see the Cafe Hayek posting.

Both the Verdon comments and the Hayek Cafe posting probably make it clearer than I was able to do.

Though it pains me to say so.

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:52 pm 347. Charlie (Colorado):

Erratum: How can this be? I don’t see the figures in the report, but my guess is that using the CBO’s method, the total number of people in that middle quintile went up, probably because they moved out of the upper quintile.

That should have been “quintiles“. Normally I wouldn’t bother about a trivial typo, but I misdoubt myself very much that anyone moved from the top quintile to the third quintile, verily leaping the fourth quintile entirely, as a result of the tax law changes.

(Come to think of it, I did it both ways in the span from 1 SEP 2001 to 1 SEP 2004, but it wasn’t because of the tax law.)

Aug 14, 2004 - 4:57 pm 348. hollywood:

You want percentages. I’ll give you percentages. http://andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/030120.html

Critics of the LA Times, the math in my earlier post was all from the Congressional Budget Office.

I appreciate the suggestion that I think for myself. This seems to work as long as I don’t conflict with some folks here.

Aug 14, 2004 - 6:29 pm 349. PeterUK:

Of course we would have a better idea if some of the mega-rich released thir tax records.The contender for first lady could set an example.

Aug 14, 2004 - 6:52 pm 350. Knucklehead:

Syl:

I very much enjoyed your post that contained

Payroll is a specific term and refers to companies with a set of characteristics which by law require them to report payroll figures monthly. These payroll figures do not include all workers. The non-payroll workers show up in a different set of BLS data..which is used to determine the actual workforce and unemployment rate.

but I feel it necessary to point out (to someone else, I’m sure you understand this) that there any comparison between employment figures for Hoover and Bush 43 are completely meaningless. There was not even an economic concept of “payroll” jobs back in Hoover’s day. There were only two categories: those with jobs and those who were able to work but didn’t have jobs. Back the nobody considered “employed by a big company” or “self employed”. We didn’t have half the laws we have today nor half the corporate reporting requirements and nobody was doing constant surveys to figure out the unemployment number. Jobs were jobs, you either had one or you didn’t.

Can anyone point to any evidence that people even talked about “unemployment rates” back when Hoover was POTUS? As far as I can tell ALL comparative numbers are conjured by economists of much more recent vintage than Hoover’s era. Trying to compare Hoover’s era with today is like trying to compare cow patties with Macintosh apples – pointless unless you need to burn something or eat and even then which you’d pick depends entirely on whether your immediate need is heat of food.

Aug 14, 2004 - 7:14 pm 351. Knucklehead:

Erik,

Somebody else pointed out here a long time ago that the whole point of the Left isn’t about distributing wealth but, rather, about distributing poverty.

There is no “enough” that the “rich” can contribute through taxes. The fundamental problem to the Left is that “rich” exists. They want everyone to be “poor”. And no matter how well the “poor” live, the very existence of “rich” drives them bonkers.

It has long since past caring about poor people and moved hopelessly into envy. As long as anyone has “more” than someone else has something (regardless of what it is or whether or not it is necessary) that the envious don’t have, they will demand that something be taken away from the “haves” and given to the “have nots”.

One of the best lines I’ve ever heard (sorry, can’t give proper attribution) was something like

From each according to ability to each according to need is the perfect incentive for people to minimize ability and maximize need.

The Left wants to minimize ability and maximize need. Its a perfect description of the fundamental strategy of the Democratic Party.

Aug 14, 2004 - 7:24 pm 352. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

Indeed, your great virtue is that you do think for yourself. Unfortunately, your vice is the simple fact that what you think doesn’t amount to much.

I usually don’t try to pull rank around here, primarily because so many of the regular posters here can eat my lunch on any given subject at any given time, but I am going to do so now. I happen to be CPA (20+ years) and I happen to have a degree in Economics. So that sets the stage for what I am about to say.

I have bypassed this little discussion on the Bush tax cut up to now primarily because you have conducted yourself in your usual manner throughout; long on bullshit and short on fact. That, in and of itself is no big deal, but it has now become apparent that you do have some sort of talent for suckering people into very long, pointless and ultimately irritating discussions.

First of all, let’s come to the clear understanding that you haven’t read the tax legislation under discussion. Nor do you have the professional knowledge or training to understand it or evaluate it. Your analysis, lame as it is, is completely second-hand. Out of necessity. Second of all, let’s also be clear that you have no formal training or education (to a meaningful degree) in Economics. So, once again, what you are dishing out is at best second-hand.

Here’s all you need to know to understand the what, why and wherefore of the Bush Tax Cut. It’s presented simply, but in an adult manner. If you want to run around this site babbling about how these tax cuts were enacted to further enrich the rich, well that’s fine. It will win you points with the Decaf Latte crowd at Starbucks. But it will leave those of us who actually understand fiscal and tax policy completely cold.

Here goes:

When faced with a slowing economy, any given administration has available to it exactly four (4) tools for use in attempting to stimulate economic growth. These are as follows:

1) fiscal policy,

2) monetary policy,

3) regulatory policy, and

4) tax policy.

Without getting too deep into the technicals, adjustments in (3) and (4) are usually not too effective as short-run, broad-based stimuli. Regulatory and tax relief usually are most effective when dealing with specific issues in specific economic/industrial sectors. We can set them aside. And yes, the Bush Tax Cut does involve taxes…but not tax policy. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Monetary policy can provide effective stimulus to the economy under certain circumstances. Obviously any administration would have to convince the Federal Reserve of the wisdom of adjusting monetary policy to encourage economic growth. There is always the possibility that such measures could lead to increased inflation. The other problem with the use of monetary policy is that there is a law of diminishing returns that applies. As you know doubt know, Fed Funds rates and interest rates have been at or near historic lows for a few years now, and under those circumstances further cuts quite simply may not be as effective as they would be under more ‘normal’ interest rate levels.

This leaves fiscal policy. Fiscal policy, simply put, is manipulating government spending to increase economic activity. It can be done two (2) ways:

1) increasing government outlays while holding tax revenues constant, or

2) reducing tax revenues while holding government outlays constant.

In either case, the point is to inject more cash into the non-government sector of the economy. And you know what? George W. Bush simply chose (2). It is that simple. He made a choice between two perfectly legitimate options in implementing a thoroughly traditional governmental response to an economy that was performing sub optimally. Period.

If George W. Bush and The Republican Horde had really wanted to enrich all their Evil Friends, they would have done it via the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives and the relevant committees in the Senate. Small bits of tax legislation tacked on to other bills as riders. It would have been quieter, easier and more effective. And you know what? They all know that. You may not know that, but they do. As tax relief for the wealthy, the Bush Tax Cut is shitty legislation. But that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has actually read the legislation and understands it within the appropriate context. It wasn’t enacted to provide tax relief to the wealth. It was enacted to provide fiscal stimulus to the economy.

And, if you could distinguish your ass and your elbow with regards to the matter at hand, you would know that. But the point is this: you didn’t and don’t. And quite frankly, you should have taken the time and effort to know before you opened your mouth.

The debating point here is twofold: Was fiscal policy the appropriate response to an economic slowdown, and was the Bush Tax Cut the more effective choice of the fiscal policy options available. Period. That you couldn’t figure that out does not reflect well on you.

Aug 14, 2004 - 7:47 pm 353. DennisThePeasant:

Roberts-

That Russert would have Krugman and O’Reilly on his show, and that Krugman would consent to ‘debate’ with O’Reilly in public, tells you all you need to know about Russert as well as Krugman.

It’s astounding to remember that less that 15 years ago there were economists would seriously considered Krugman to have the talent to be the ‘next’ Keynes. It is also amusing to remember that Krugman spent most of the ’90s ragging on Lester Thurow of MIT for being ‘more journalist than economist’. Like Krugman could actually rise to the level of journalism!

Aug 14, 2004 - 8:03 pm 354. Charlie (Colorado):

You want percentages. I’ll give you percentages. Link…

Okay, at least this one makes the argument explcit: Tobias says rich people should pay more ’cause they’re richer. Make that “rich people should pay even more than the 64 percent or the total they already pay.”

We can argue this. Why do you think one fifth of the people — who already pay two-thirds of the income taxes — should pay more? How much more?

Do you have an answer? I’m not the first one to ask.

Critics of the LA Times, the math in my earlier post was all from the Congressional Budget Office.

The problem is that the LA Times doesn’t appear to have understood it. I quoted exact figures from the CBO report, and gave you a link to the document; even included page references.

Can you tell me why my analysis is incorrect, and the analysis you cite is correct? Can you explain why Steve Verdon and the guy at Hayek Cafe are wrong? (They’re both well reputed professional economists, by the way. That doesn’t mean to say they couldn’t be wrong, but if we have to resort to an appeal to authority, we ought to at least know who they are.)

I appreciate the suggestion that I think for myself. This seems to work as long as I don’t conflict with some folks here.

I’d love to see some evidence of you thinking for yourself.

So far, you’ve answered all my points with evasions and links to other people’s stuff.

You’re making claims about the math, but you’re not doing any math, and the math you’re pointing to is wrong. Or, at best, misleading.

Continuing to link to it, or talk about the authority of the LA Times, is just the opposite of evidence that you’re thinking for yourself.

One of those links clearly even contradicted the point you were trying to make.

This isn’t evidence of thinking for yourself, this is evidence of dumb mimicry.

I’d love to see some evidence that you’re thinking for yourself. I’m a college professor, at least some of the time, and one of the things I do is try to encourage thinking.

As I said, you seem to be someone of some wit and verbal skill. This is a good thing. If you were thinking for yourself, you might say something I haven’t heard before. You might raise an argument that made me change my mind. I might learn something. I like learning new things.

I already see the stories in the major press. I’m interested in seeing your thoughts, the new ones you’d have if you thought for yourself.

Have you got any?

Aug 14, 2004 - 8:41 pm 355. Erik:

Hollywood,

you cant be serious.

Changing the top bracket from 39.6% to 35% is that much of a big deal, that you think it’s almost criminal?

Are you seriously arguing that the top rate, for income over $311K, should be raised by 4,6%, and then everything would be fine and dandy, and nothing to talk about anymore?

I just fail to see that 4,6% of the top bracket is that big of a deal, the top 1% still pay over 20% of total taxes.

In one of the links provided, it says that the CBO report is a forecast, based in the 2001 economy, and adjusted for the new tax rates. It uses 3 year old information to make a guesstimate of what today *might* be like.

Kind of like using last months weather to guess if you’ll need an umbrella before you step outside.

Is the guy that wrote that link a Swedish socialist? I almost got nostalgic reading it, I recognize all his “arguments” from the far left here.

The main argument always seems to be “we need lots of money for social programs, so lets raise taxes as much as we can get away with”. That is a typical scandinavian socialists reasoning. There is absolutely not even a hint of economic reasoning above the level of “they got money, we want it”. Wasn’t it Dillinger that said he robbed banks because “that’s where the money are”?

It doesn’t take all that many of the high income earners leaving the country until the rates come down. Especially not if they take their companies with them…

There are 4 tax bases that wont leave the country; Food, Property and Poor People. “Tax the rich” is just blowing smoke.

But it’s obvious you dont have any opinion of your own, since you just gave a link with someone elses opinion.

Knucklehead,

The more I hear the US Democrats talk, the more they sound like old school Swedish socialists. Whenever I hear Kerry speak, I’m reminded of Gudrun Schyman. For those that don’t know her, she was the former leader of the Left (former Communist) Party…Very populistic, and somewhat truth-challenged…

Socialists (or whatever one wants to call them) want to remove incentive to work and instead make people rely on the state to always be there for them. If you dont have money, it’s because someone else do, so just take it from them. I once heard a debate where a youth politician said “if a young man can’t afford a car, I think it’s only natural that he steals one”. She later became our Attorney General.

In 1960, Sweden had a tax pressure of 28.7%, and was nr 6 in GDP per capita.

Today, Sweden has a tax pressure of 55%, and are sliding way down the list, 16-19 somewhere.

If Sweden was a state in the US, we would rate lowest, and probably get federal aid… High tax pressure strangles the economy…

Aug 14, 2004 - 8:56 pm 356. Roberts:

Odd, I keep missing the part where Hollywood thinks for him or herself. All I see is Hollywood “linking” to posts that evidently Hollywood doesn’t actually understand but seem to superficially match some vague opinion of Hollywood’s.

Aug 14, 2004 - 9:54 pm 357. Roberts:

Dennis, well said on the policy. And I think that Russert had some bizarre idea that Krugman was “smarter” than O’Reilly and would give O’Reilly the drubbing that they both no doubt believe he deserves.

Frankly, that would not have broken my heart – I’ve long been a severe critic of O’Reilly – but Krugman is all hot wind and nothing else. Amusing that a not-very-bright bag of wind put him in his place.

Aug 14, 2004 - 9:57 pm 358. M. Simon:

DtP,

I don’t remember whether we are on the same side on the “issues” or not.

But I must say that your rant on economics was one of the finest take downs I have read in a very long time.

Bravo!

Simon

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:10 pm 359. hollywood:

Charlie (Colorado),

“We can argue this. Why do you think one fifth of the people — who already pay two-thirds of the income taxes — should pay more? How much more?”

Frankly, I doubt this [2/3 of the taxes bit] if you consider FICA, Medicare, sales tax, state income tax, gasoline taxes, property tax, excise taxes, etc. If you’ve got the stats, please share them. Assuming arguendo, that you are correct, then why is the gap between rich and poor expanding? Why are more people having a harder time making the grade? In horse racing the favorites have to carry more weight to make the race more of a contest. I think we have to do the same in our economy. Otherwise, the race is rigged. Otherwise, we risk a descent into chaos, ignorance and massive poverty. Some folks here act as if they want Social Darwinism, but if you think about the repercussions it’s nonsense.

When lots of citizens are running around without health care, the rich need to pay more. It’s actually cost effective for most of us. The trend in health care is disease state management. Screening, identifying problems and dealing with them before they become a drain on the health care delivery system is cost effective. We waste lots of money having uninsured people show up with problems in ER when they could just go to a doctor during office hours if they could afford to. By analogy, we have a similar negative drain on the economy when we have folks who can’t keep up and are declaring bankruptcy in record numbers. Yes, we are sophisticated. Yes, we have a great system. But we bury too many people with regressive taxes, a poor educational system, lack of health care, etc.

How do you propose to solve our problems? [For that matter, how does Mr. Bush propose to solve them? I'm still waiting for something beyond the claim to being a "compassionate conservative."] Here’s a man with some ideas. What do you think of them and why?

http://mattmilleronline.com/book.php?s=q

Erik,

Mr. Tobias is not a Swedish socialist. He’s a pretty sharp guy (Harvard MBA, IIRC) who happens to be something in the DNC (treasurer?). Also a best selling author on investing.

DtP,

I guess I’m supposed to be impressed that you’re a CPA. I’m more impressed with the massive chip on your shoulder. I suggest you get therapy soon. Very soon. Otherwise, I predict a bitter end for you, sir. CPA or no.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:11 pm 360. M. Simon:

Hollywood,

How high do taxes have to get before people take their jobs and their money elsewhere?

Clue stick here (I ain’t as gentle as DtP) the fookin SOCIALISTS in Spain lowered the capital gains tax. Ya suppose they are trying to attract some of our money? Mexicans are stealing our jobs and the Spanish are stealing our money. What has tthe world come to?

Wake up. Start learning how to feed the goose instead of spending your time chasing it with a stick. Fool.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:18 pm 361. hollywood:

M. Simon,

“Start learning how to feed the goose instead of spending your time chasing it with a stick.”

I love foie gras, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:30 pm 362. M. Simon:

Friends and neighbors. I havefrom time to time lived on not enough income to pay my bills due to circumstances I’d rather not go into.

All I can say is that public health care is more than adequate if you take advantage of it and they pretty much charge what you can afford and are not zealous about collecting.

This does not seem so bad to me.

Being without medical insurance in America does not mean going without adequate care. Where people ever got this dumb idea in this day and age is beyond me.

Being poor has opened my eyes to what a rich country this is. For gods sake you can get basic transportation auto for $400 if you know what to look for. And with $20 in tools from China I can maintain it. Brand new color TV $150 with remote and stereo sound. OK it is not 40″ so what. Sit closer. VCR under $70. Video game around $200.

Ladies and gentlemen. This is shit poor people can afford.

In the bottom 20% 60% own a house.What kind of deal is that where over thalf of the poorest Americans own their own home?

The streets are literally paved with gold and you are complaining the rich aren’t taxed enough.

Ingrates.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:34 pm 363. M. Simon:

hollywood,

If you’re eating foie gras you aren’t paying enough taxes. Since in this country people self assess I suggest you put yourself in a higher bracket. I mean you want to be fair don’t you? Why wait for the goverment to act? Just send them more money. It ain’t hard. You just write a check.

The goose of course is the one laying the golden eggs.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:40 pm 364. hollywood:

M. Simon,

OK, I was kidding about the foie gras. I do love it, but I can’t afford it (well, maybe on a special occasion).

But your math escapes me on the housing issue. As far as I can tell about 76% ownership is the highest in any state (falling below 50% in New York). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual03/ann03t13.html

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:46 pm 365. Sandy P:

1. W bringing down the 39.6% to 35% just made the sub-S and SBOs equal to the big boys. who do you think the backbone of this country is, Microsoft and the big boys? No Small Business Owners who pay both sides of FICA – 15.42% – and because we’re “rich” most likely our SS will be means-tested.

2. Before the top rate was lowered, Sub-S making between $300K – $18 MILLION were taxed at 39.6%, while those making $18 million or more were taxed at the corporate rate, I wonder why?

3. –When lots of citizens are running around without health care, the rich need to pay more.–

Who died and left you boss? My husband is in mfg. One of his little vendors offers HI, but the employees CHOOSE to take the pay instead. Start paying attention to HSA – the big firms are looking at that legislation closely, and it’ll start busting HC in this country wide open because people will CHOOSE how to handle their own medical care.

If you’re pro-choice, how can you not be for people to make their own decisions?

4. — when they could just go to a doctor during office hours if they could afford to.–

What happens if they can’t get the time off? Which is why W is proposing choose OT pay or time off.

5. It’s also not cost efficient to give people too much of something, they tend to make pigs of themselves. Canada, Britain, France and Australia all have budget problems because of their health care systems. Then HC becomes rationed. Unless you can pay for it yourself, you’re screwed, then we’re back to the “it’s not fair, the rich can afford better and faster care.” Plus, this care is skewed towards the young. If you’re over 60 in Britain, you’re moved down the food chain. Canada has no private insurance, the state dictates everything. Why do you think so many Canucks come across the border for treatment? And our southern neighbors? And then the rich are supposed to pay for illegals? Do you have any inkling as to what kind of message that telegraphs? Where does it stop?

And I’m sorry, but unless we’re talking rural here, with all the clinics and support and subsidization we already have, I really don’t get it.

Who are “the rich” how are you going to means-test – yearly income or net assets, and how much of “the riches” income do you think is “fair” to take? Keeping in mind there’s a point where they will decide not to work as hard since it’s taken away for the collective good and tax receipts will fall…..

One could make the argument that NHC is legislating morality, you have more therefore you must give most of it up for the collective’s sake, but only pubbies get accused of trying to legislate morality….

Another problem is that each state has different requirements, some states cover transsexual operations, some have unlimited in vitros, not every state offers the same coverage. And again, why do you think another layer of bureacracy is the answer?

–a poor educational system,– that’s lack of standards, unfunded mandates and soft subjects. The entire world is a petri dish, the 60s boomers have had a lot of influence and have been in charge for quite a long time now, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:49 pm 366. Sandy P:

–But we bury too many people with regressive taxes, —

Except “the rich” it would seem.

NYC has low ownership because while I think we can agree that we have not won their hearts and minds, major operations of WWII are over and there really is no need for WWII rent control, either there or in SF.

And once NYC takes the caps off, home ownership should grow. But they won’t. Another failed policy – see what happened in MA in Cambridge (?) c. 1993-4. Townhall or National Review might have had the article.

Rent control keeps the riff-raff out, at least in SF.

Aug 14, 2004 - 11:57 pm 367. DennisThePeasant:

Lil Wood-

I couldn’t help noticing that rather than react to my criticism in a meaningful way, like countering it with a well written, well thought-out and factually supported post that actually substantiates your claims of ‘tax cuts for the rich’, you decided to engage in a bit of the ol’ ad hominem. How very Dennis of you, as you would say. Now if you can actually write posts that demonstrate a knowledge of the issues at hand, then we’ll be even.

Bringing up the fact that I was a CPA was not intended to ‘impress’ you. I’ve spent enough time around lawyers to know that the only thing that impresses them is themselves. No, it was to reinforce the idea that I had actually spent some time reading and understanding the legislation at hand, and actually had enough formal education and training to understand what its’ intent was and what it was likely to both accomplish and not accomplish.

You see, not everyone views politics and government through the mind’s eye of an Al Franken or La Barbra. There are those of us who take the time and trouble to actually acquaint themselves with the specifics of the issues and attempt to sort them out in a relatively sophisticated manner. You flatter yourself that I’m after you because we disagree and/or because I have some sort of personality defect. That is not correct. I’m after you because you’re lazy, uninformed and childish when it comes to the issues you feel compelled to ‘debate’.

What I want at this site, and have wanted for over a year, is a Liberal/Leftist Democrat who is well informed and intelligent enough to debate meaningfully via well written, factually supported posts. Despite numerous attempts at faking your way through this, you have demonstrated you definitely ain’t that person. I’m doing nothing more than calling your bluff. You see, I’m not so much bitter as I am impatient…babysitting is not an activity I enjoy.

And by the way…Cain did the whole ‘you’re a bitter man and will come to a nasty end’ schtick a couple of days ago. Remember? You can’t even think for yourself when it comes to your dodges.

Aug 15, 2004 - 5:19 am 368. PeterUK:

Dennis,

Don’t waste your time,Hollywood’s identity and occupation, have morphed considerably since he/she/it/them, started commenting.You are probably coresponding with an entity from the Democratic Underwear.

Aug 15, 2004 - 6:25 am 369. Charlie (Colorado):

Frankly, I doubt this [2/3 of the taxes bit] if you consider FICA, Medicare, sales tax, state income tax, gasoline taxes, property tax, excise taxes, etc.

Well, that contradicts the CBO report cited by the LA TIMES that you seemed to be real impressed with a post or two ago. Do you have figures? References?

Assuming arguendo, that you are correct, then why is the gap between rich and poor expanding?

Assuming arguendo that it is, why does it matter? Other than some belief that it shouldn’t happen that way? Poor people in the US in 2004 live much better by lots of measures than they did in 1970. (There was a pretty interesting story on this, based on Census data, somewhere just recently. I’m sure it could be Googled.)

Why are more people having a harder time making the grade?

Making what grade? More people own their own homes than ever before. More people have multiple color TVs and such than ever before. More people have indoor plumbing than ever before. The black and hispanic middle classes are bigger than ever before, both by statistics and by the observation that mainstream advertising is specifically aimed at them.

Otherwise, we risk a descent into chaos, ignorance and massive poverty.

Maybe — but if so, why is it that the countries that have followed your prescription are the ones that ended up in chaos, ignorance, and massive poverty?

Now look, I really do want to encourage you here. Everything you’ve said this time has been in your own words, and you’ve made explicit statements of your own opinions and beliefs, and that’s a good start. (As well as a demonstration that you’re not a mere troll, which I’d begun to wonder about.)

But let’s see what you’re saying.

Screening, identifying problems and dealing with them before they become a drain on the health care delivery system is cost effective. We waste lots of money having uninsured people show up with problems in ER when they could just go to a doctor during office hours if they could afford to.

You’re exactly correct here. We have turned emergency rooms into the fallback doctor’s office and it doesn’t work very well. (And now that we agree on that, can we dispose of the canard that people who don’t have insurance don’t have access to health care?) But then, you say:

When lots of citizens are running around without health care, the rich need to pay more.

Well, okay, so I guess we can’t dispose of that canard.

I’ve reversed the order from the order in which you said it for clarity and to make my point that there’s an internal contradiction, but it’s actually just as interesting that your statement that “the rich need to pay more” is the first one in the paragraph. Why? Because it appears that you take it as axiomatic, as one of the assumptions on which your reasoning depends.

It would be tempting to just accuse you of “petitio principii”, begging the question: after all, isn’t the question we’re arguing whether the rich need to pay more? But that isn’t fair if it really is an axiomatic assumption on your part.

But when you are making an assertion that your logic corresponds with the real world, you have to examine whether the axioms actually do state things that “go without saying”, that you really can say they are truths that are self-evident. I don’t find this one self-evident at all; can you justify the assertion as an axiom, or argue it from some other set of axioms?

Look, I had my own youthful flirtation with socialism, and I’m still firmly convinced that it’s desirable for poorer people to get rich, or at least less poor. I just don’t see much sign that taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people causes that to happen; on the contrary, I see, over and over again, that places where it’s been tried just end up with more poor people and no rich people.

Aug 15, 2004 - 9:23 am 370. Charlie (Colorado):

I broke this up because it’s really two topics and I wanted to address them seperately… plus I didn’t want to exercise the timeout bug too heavily.

How do you propose to solve our problems? [For that matter, how does Mr. Bush propose to solve them? I'm still waiting for something beyond the claim to being a "compassionate conservative."]

It appear to me to be clear that on national defense issues, the Bush administration is following a very sophisticated long-term strategy based on the best of Sunzi and other classical sources. I’ve gone into what I see at length in other postings; the gist of it is that it appears to me that the strategy is to make it too expensive and risky for other countries to support terrorist organizations, and to work toward the overthrow and liberalization of the generally fascist states that do so. Sometimes this comes from military action (Afghanistan, Iraq), sometimes this comes from diplomatic action (North Korea, Libya), and sometimes it appears that we’re primarily depending on the collapse of the system from its own internal contradictions (Iran, North Korea again.)

For the Bush positions on health care, I’d rather you just read the Bush campaign materials; I’m not at all up on his take, since I’m primarily a national-defense voter this year.

As to my opinions on health care, for what it’s worth: I don’t have the foggiest notion what the right answer is, it’s a really hard problem. There seem to be a couple of things, though, that might give some traction.

First, I’d really like to see a good, well-researched estimate of what the costs of unlimited damage awards are. From an actuarial standpoint, unlimited damage awards with no way to get a good estimate of how many there will be guarantees unlimited insurance premiums. The need to not be at risk for any possible argument that some plantiff’s lawyer might make that some test might have been done that would have prevented some problem that occurred leads to massive over-testing. I think, with some good reason, that this raises the overall cost of health care massively.

Right now, what appears to be the best solution for an MD is (a) sign your house over to your wife or kids and pay rent; (b) don’t carry insurance; (c) take a vow of poverty; and (d) be a good doc. With no personal assets, and no insurance, there’s no impetus for a lawyer to take the case.

I don’t think this is a very good solution, but as it stands, the relatively low-risk, widely necessary specialties like OB/GYN are nearly uneconomic.

Second, I’d like to see some of the weird federal rules re-thought. As it stands today, a large firm can buy cheap health insurance with pre-tax dollars, because they can build a big risk pool from their own employees, and because those costs are defined as pre-tax costs. A small firm has a small risk pool, which for mathematical reasons means the risk per employee is higher, and people who are self-employed or work for a firm that doesn’t provide health insurance have to buy their insurance with after-tax dollars.

What this means is that under current law, insurance for those uninsured people is much more expensive — my estimate is about 60 percent more expensive, although I’d not take that as much better than a guess. (Dennis?)

A solution to this is could be to let everyone buy insurance with pre-tax dollars, and change the rules on how risk pools are set up. Another solution might be to make the insurance market more competitive; as federal insurance regulations work right now, there’s nearly a complete disconnect between the cost of health care and the consumers of health care.

On education, my ideas are kind of radical in several ways. First of all, it’s clear that something is badly wrong; when a freshman at a place like Duke can’t be expected to be able to write a coherent paragraph, with topic sentence, and sentences in which noun and verb agree in number, something is just wrong.

On the other hand, just adding money doesn’t appear to be the answer: cost per student is very highly negatively correlated with educational outcome. That is, the more you spend per student, the worse the students do in class. There are lots of reasons for that, it isn’t completely simple, but that’s an awfully curious indication.

But then … just a couple of years ago, Clinton rented his office psace in harlem for about $27 per square foot (heated, lighted, and serviced). New York City spends around $9500 per public school student per year.

I visited the preserved one-room school at the Adams County (CO) museum the other day; it’s less than 400 square feet and room for about 25 students. If we rented that space in Manhattan, that’d be about $10,600 a year. At $9500 per student, the total revenue would be $237,500 per year.

That means, after the rent, we’ve got $226,900 per year left. I bet you could attract some pretty powerful minds to teaching is you promised them a salary of $113,450 per year, along with a budget of $113,450 a year for textbooks and materials.

Would it work? I don’t know, but you’ve only got to read some letters from Civil War vets to see that people who graduated from those one-room schools were more literate than the usual high-school grad now. It sure seems to suggest that the current methods don’t work.

There’s no question that something has to be done to buy down the unfunded social security overhang. Again from an actuarial/accunting standpoint, what social security really is, is an underfunded pension plan. The pension “contributions” are mandatory, and the “investment” has been in the US Treasury, with no individual ownership and no obligation to provide a reasonable rate of return.

Everyone in the social security system benefits from this, because it pays down the current defecit. However, remember my stability criterion for economics: the rate of expenditure growth is positive (and rising, the second derivative is also positive) but the rate of revenue growth currently isn’t. You can solve that in one of two ways: reduce the growth of expenditures, or increase the growth of revenues.

Trimming the growth of expenditures isn’t politically feasible, and in any case is immoral: those are benefts that were purchased with “federal insurance contributions”, and reducing them would be expropriation. It’s bad enough that they don’t earm much interest.

Increasing the growth of taxes to increase revenues isn’t feasible either, because the pig is halfway through the python.

That leaves coming up with another way to buy back the unfunded pensions, and that means getting the money and putting it into paying investments.

What other problems would you like my take on?

Here’s a man with some ideas. What do you think of them and why?

Link…

Haven’t read the whole book, but on first impression I’d say there’s some good ideas in there, screaming to be let out of the statist framework.

The two percent surtax seems plausible as a source of funds. The problem is that he seems to think the government can spend it to good effect, and I don’t see much evidence of that. On the other hand, if something could be done to reduce the overall costs by that same two percent, you wouldn’t need a surtax at all (which is part of Miller’s proposal too.)

Aug 15, 2004 - 10:31 am 371. Charlie (Colorado):

What I want at this site, and have wanted for over a year, is a Liberal/Leftist Democrat who is well informed and intelligent enough to debate meaningfully via well written, factually supported posts.

While you’re ordering, could I get a BLT? I think Roger forgot my kreplach.

Aug 15, 2004 - 10:34 am 372. richard mcenroe:

Charlie(Colorado) ó Can you name a socialist state that functions without either a strong capitalist subcomponent (e.g., Western Europe) off which it leeches capital for its socialist programs, or a strong capitalist trading partner pumping capital from outside (e.g., China)? Is there one socialist country in the world that supports itself through socialist practice?

And here is a thought for a combination tax revenue/social security fix: Give people the option of paying taxes or buying an equivalent value in long-term government bonds. Thus people have the option of choosing to take what the government chooses/can afford to dole them out for social security, or for taking the responsibility of financing it to their own satisfaction.

Aug 15, 2004 - 11:22 am 373. hollywood:

Charlie (Colorado) and Sandy P,

Thank you for your posts! I’m very impressed (don’t have ideas to exchange with you, I’m afraid, but I am impressed). For the first time I felt as if someone here was actually talking to me, not at me. I really appreciate it.

As someone said,

Peace.

Aug 15, 2004 - 2:15 pm 374. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie(Colorado) ÔøΩ Can you name a socialist state that functions without either a strong capitalist subcomponent (e.g., Western Europe) off which it leeches capital for its socialist programs, or a strong capitalist trading partner pumping capital from outside (e.g., China)? Is there one socialist country in the world that supports itself through socialist practice?

No.

Is this a trick question?

A little quibble — The People’s Republic is really running much more like a fascist oligopoly than a socialism now; the politically connected are getting rich, and the people in general are living much better than they have in the past. However, I don’t think a fascist oligopoly with political oppression is stable long term.

Aug 15, 2004 - 3:53 pm 375. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood:

Thank you for your posts! I’m very impressed (don’t have ideas to exchange with you, I’m afraid, but I am impressed). For the first time I felt as if someone here was actually talking to me, not at me. I really appreciate it.

And back at you — this time you actually said what you thought, rather than parrotting a talking point.

Isn’t that ever so much more fun?

(PS. As far as having ideas to respond with, you do it just like we did: you make it up. As long as you treat us seriously, i’m sure wed’ll treat your ideas seriously.)

Shalom.

Aug 15, 2004 - 3:56 pm 376. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard:

And here is a thought for a combination tax revenue/social security fix: Give people the option of paying taxes or buying an equivalent value in long-term government bonds. Thus people have the option of choosing to take what the government chooses/can afford to dole them out for social security, or for taking the responsibility of financing it to their own satisfaction.

Sorry, this deserved an answer and I forgot.

The problem with this one is that people my age (I’m about to turn 49) have been “contributing” to the “insurance fund” for 30 years, and you have to be prepared to buy down the obligations from that. Last I looked, that was something like $250,000 in principal alone. Now, I don’t actually intend to retire, becausse if I retired I’d spend all my time writing and messing with computers and that’s what they pay me for now. But I don’t think the the only one of my generation who would take it kind of badly to be told that the “investment” in the Treasury that this supposedly represented is a debt the US is repudiating.

Bush’s privatization scheme was something that moved in that direction, though — it gave people the option of investing part of the FICA “contribution”, rather than buying into social security for that amount, at the cost of lower SS benefits at retirement. (Since social security has a net rate of return on the investment of something like 1 percent, that would always be a good bet — even a six month CD beats that.)

Something of this sort — using general revenues or social security taxes to buy back the unfunded part, while allowing real investment with some part of the total FICA — I think is the only real solution long term.

Aug 15, 2004 - 4:12 pm 377. Knucklehead:

Charlie,

One of the problems we face when people “think” about these sorts of problems is that humans have a tendency to think that whatever is today has always been and will always be. For lack of any better description I think of it as the Steady State Myth.

It drives all sorts of idiocies. The Environmental Brownshirts suffers from this. They seem to actually believe that the Earth Goddess had achieved a steady state climate before Republicans came along and that if only Republicans can be hunted down and re-educated she’ll restore herself to Steady State.

When it comes to socialist welfare programs we face the same sorts of idiocies. One generation ago nobody could have seriously concieved of the idea that we’d reach Longer Life Through Chemistry. Would any person beyond the age of, say, sixty-five have guessed, 20 years ago, that having a list of doctors and color coded, day of the week tagged pillboxes, along with a pharmacy bill that matches their expense of their mortgage and car payment of 20 years ago combined would become an ordinary part of last 20 years or so of human life? They could not possibly have imagined this let along put in place some sensible financial system to deal with it.

Those of us in the middle of our expected years have paid into the “safey net” for a long time and it is only natural to expect a payout. We don’t really care that the cost of this might swamp our childrens’ ability to pay for it or that a population heavy with first gen immigrants might resent the tax burden.

Whatever way out there is has to make some honest assessments of where we are and what the future might look like and has to be “phased” in a best effort way to adapt as times change.

It seems to me that the biggest problem welfare systems face is an inability to adapt. Safety nets become entitlements with constituencies and nobody wants to go back and determine if the situation has changed enough that a current system has outlived its usefulness and a new system is called for.

Sorry, I guess that was nothing more than venting.

Aug 16, 2004 - 5:57 am 378. hollywood:

Well, here goes nothing….

In the back of my cranium, something keeps bugging me about the incredible cost of the WOT and Homeland Security. Somewhere in this piece Tobias says our defense expenditures are now approaching 5% of GDP. http://www.andrewtobias.com/ That seems like a lot. More to the point, it does not seem productive. I guess in some ways I’m a utilitiarian (greatest good for the greatest number). Spending so much on defense or offense if you want to view it that way seems to subtract from the greater good.

Years ago when no fault auto insurance was all the rage, a guy named Calabreeze (?) wrote a piece called The Decision for Accidents. His thought was that our fault system is so costly that we’d be better off waiving arguments over fault and just get the money into the hands of the injured parties–or their doctors and auto body repair shops. This seemed to lose traction over the years, but the idea of the cost benefit analysis of such things remains.

My point is that no one wants to die or see anyone die in a terrorist attack, but just how much are we going to spend trying to prevent something that seems relatively limited in effect? I’m not saying we make the decision “for” terrorism, but where do we draw the line? People die in other ways and I suspect the money is being diverted if you will from say health care, research, welfare, whatever, in order to pay for homeland security. I think we have to spend some money on security for moral reasons, sheer principle, and for our morale, but at a certain point we reach a point not only of diminishing returns in terms of security but also of decreasing investment/returns for other efforts that get shortchanged so that we can have this sense that we are protecting ourselves against our elusive enemies. What’s the answer? Where does the line get drawn?

Aug 16, 2004 - 9:03 am 379. jerry:

hollywood:

Ok, understand your “utility” analysis. So tell me how much damage to you think yor utilitarian veiw allows us to tolerate? An occasional backpack bombing at Pizza Hut? A Madrid twice a year? WTC every other year? A WMD event ever third year? How long do you the public would tolerate any of these levels before an armed (probably over-armed in your view) citizenry takes the law into their own hands and begins a Balkan style ethnic cleansing campaign?

Aug 16, 2004 - 10:09 am 380. hollywood:

jerry,

Yes, those are the issues. Or, if you want, you can play out a reductio ad absurdum. I think it would be a better argument if we knew that we were going to be able to prevent all the scenarios you propose after spending all the money. But, of course, we have no assurance that we can/will.

Actually, if you think about it, some lines are currently being drawn in that we are not spending every penny on security. So, if the scenarios play out as you suggest and our expenditures and efforts haven’t prevented the losses, what’s the answer? Spend more money? Spend it in different ways?

Aug 16, 2004 - 10:19 am 381. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood, you really need to talk to an economist about this, but my understanding is this:

(1) remember that all that money spent on DHS or defense doesn’t disappear — it’s being spent in the US (primarily) on US products, using deficits. According to Keynes, that should be a Good Thing, increasing GDP and stimulating the economy.

(2) Remember what a hit the economy took from 9/11? Basically pushed us over into recession. Considering those costs, the DHS money may be well spent.

I’m suspicious of the number, though: for it to be that high, I suspect a good bit of the Dept Defense budget is creeping in.

Aug 16, 2004 - 10:20 am 382. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood, there’s an old saying in advertising that 90 percent of advertising is wasted — but that nobody knows which 90 percent.

Aug 16, 2004 - 10:21 am 383. jerry:

Hollywood:

you said: “My point is that no one wants to die or see anyone die in a terrorist attack, but just how much are we going to spend trying to prevent something that seems relatively limited in effect? I’m not saying we make the decision “for” terrorism, but where do we draw the line? ”

Seems to me that I was not engaging in a reductionist argument. I was merely taking your words at face value. I guess you were just asking a rhetorical question and not looking for a serious answer. Or is it you simply refuse to confront the implications of your utilitarian argument? I think it is the latter.

Aug 16, 2004 - 10:40 am 384. Knucklehead:

For some background on the Economic Costs of 9/11.

One can look at matters such as auto accidents and even health care in a “utilitarian” sense. We can track auto accidents and make reasonable guestimates of what they cost society as a whole, do research and enginnering to make autos and highways safer, improve driving (there’s one we never look at ;>) and measure results. We know that safer cars and highways reduce traffic accidents even if we can’t necessarily break down the benefits derived to the particular improvements made.

There is a certain amount of that sort of utilitarianist analysis available to health care and health care insurance also. The problem here is that “health” can be very different from, for example, an “event” such as an auto accident and we can’t necessarily measure the benefits of improvements. The longer people live the more likely it becomes that something will kill them. Things like arthritis and dementia and some forms of cancer, for example, are more likely to “get you” if you live long enough.

But the costs/benfits of defense spending and the costs of terrorism are different animals entirely.

Let’s start with terrorism. While the likelihood that any of us will become the victim of a terrorist act (in an injury or death sense) may be smaller than the likelihood we will be injured in an auto accident or develop a health problem (I’m not suggesting either is true or untrue, just postulating), the very nature of a terrorist act is to maximize both the impact and the distribution of the suffering it causes. Traffic accidents and health problems are somewhat fully randomized. The more you drive or the less you take care of yourself, obviously, increase the risks but nobody is “targetted” for an accident or health problem by anyone else. We can write those off to something approaching pure happenstance or bad luck.

The same in not true for a terrorist act. Those are more like instantaneous mass murders done by an actor with malintent upon some identified set of victims.

The link I gave presents some idea of the difficulties involved in figuring out the cost of terrorist attacks. Whatever the cost is, it is expensive. And that stuff just looks at one episode and not the costs of escalating or expanding episodes or the severity thereof. We can’t legitimately estimate what the econmic impact of a series of terrorists acts would be. They aren’t economically the same as the annual variations in hurricanes and tornados and earthquakes, for example. And there’s no identifiable good way to “build” to minimize the costs of strikes. We basically know where certain types of weather or other natural disaster events occur and can build around them to an extent. We can’t drive the cost of those things to zero but we can absorb some cost over time and build to try to save lives and minimize property damage and loss.

How does one estimated the benefits derived from spending money on “defense”? Can anyone make, or has anyone ever seen, and economic analysis of, for example, our response to WWII? Perhaps it would have been more “utilitarian” to have spent only 60% or 75% of the money spent and build up a purely defensive force and let the fascists have everything they could take up to our line in the water.

We’ve heard many times that Reagan did a trillion dollar buildup that was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war. How do estimated the economic benefit of that? How do we add in the costs incurred by whatever portion of the Islamofascist problem is the result of the power vacuum caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union?

How can we possibly estimate what the cost would be of not making an attempt to stop Islamofascism rather than merely definding against it? If we had continued to (or, conversely resume) allow it to spread, how can we estimate what that would cost us? If, for example, the ME falls to Islamofascists and Israel is pushed into the ocean and Pakistan and several other Ikisans become fanatical paraihs bent on undermining the economic health of the west, what does that cost us?

I just don’t see how dollars and cents, utilitarian analysis can be done or would make much sense.

And, notfuhnuttin’, but we can always resort to sandbagging the borders and putting up a defensive line somewhere along our territorial waters and boders. I’d prefer we spend as much as seems necessary to stop things from reaching that point.

If you think the big, bad, nasty and meanspirited conservatives are terrible now, just wait till you see what would happen if the terrorists struck areas other than the east coast and wound up committing 75% of the populace to either sandbagging the borders or nuking ‘em till they glow and then hunting the lives in the dark.

Utilitarian cost/benefit analysis is not useful in this case. You don’t want to accept the costs or lose the benefits of western civilization no matter how much you might pretend you hate it. Would you really be willing to stand by and watch as we actually developed the internal forces necessary to run around like Brownshirts and round up every Muslim and other immigrant in the country? Would you really be willing to sit back and develop cost models as lunatics occassionaly get through and blow up buildings or trains or planes and the like? Utilitarian, heh. Well, it ain’t for me. You may think it worthwhile but I’d ask you to seriously review your sense of values.

Aug 16, 2004 - 11:01 am 385. PeterUK:

When it comes to “guns or butter” the European experience in later years has shown up the weaknesses of an imbalance.Europe has chosen to put social welfare above military might,a perfectly respectable decision,but one which leaves it incapable of projecting power, as the recent debacle in the Balkans showed only too pitilessly.The impotence at the defiance of the Iranian Mullahs is another brutal example of the boundaries of the welfare state.

9/11 was an example of what happens if a great state declines to project its power,the limits of that power will be probed.

Without the military of the US,Osama bin Laden would be sitting in his mansion outside Kabul planning another heinous atrocity,there would not have been a “No Fly Zone” in Iraq,the Kurds might have ceased to exist and Saddam Hussein would have been achieved his ambition to possess the “First Arab Bomb”.

Does anyone feel that lucky?

Aug 16, 2004 - 11:56 am 386. hollywood:

jerry,

My point was that spending assessments are being made on security everyday, whether by bureaucrats, the Congress, elected local offical and, I suppose, POTUS. I’m just verbalizing what they haven’t.

knucklehead,

Interesting link. Thanks. Values are important. But who is deciding what value to put on all these things and why? Based on?

“If you think the big, bad, nasty and meanspirited conservatives are terrible now, just wait till you see what would happen if the terrorists struck areas other than the east coast and wound up committing 75% of the populace to either sandbagging the borders or nuking ‘em till they glow and then hunting the lives in the dark.”

Yes, at that point the urge to nuke gets pretty high I’m sure. But, how do you nuke terrorists? Especially if they’re among us or always on the move?

charlie (Colorado),

That’s funny and true about advertising. Reminds me of Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is bullshit. Hence, anything can be rated on a 10 point scale, depending on the amount of material that isn’t b.s. I guess you’re right that at least some of the security expenditures benefit the economy. It’s not like we’re just building nuclear warheads that aren’t going to be used.

Aug 16, 2004 - 12:03 pm 387. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood, decent point, bad example: every last one of the nuclear warheads the US built were used.

They were used continuing a defense doctrine that consisted primarily to trying to convince the soviets that there wouldn’t be anything left anywhere if a war started.

Was it a smart doctrine? I dunno; however, there was no atomic war.

As far as the security expenditures benefitting the economy, if you can find any part of the expenditures that aren’t being used on goods or services within the economy, I’ll grant that.

Aug 16, 2004 - 12:54 pm 388. Charlie (Colorado):

By the way, have we set a length of thread record yet?

Aug 16, 2004 - 12:55 pm 389. hollywood:

“Hollywood, decent point, bad example: every last one of the nuclear warheads the US built were used.

“They were used continuing a defense doctrine that consisted primarily to trying to convince the soviets that there wouldn’t be anything left anywhere if a war started.”

Hmmm. Is this the same rationale for the S.D.I.?

Aug 16, 2004 - 12:59 pm 390. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

You suggested that there is some way to measure the cost of the WoT or to take the defense budget as a whole and make some sort of utilitarian cost/benefit analysis and arrive at some “tolerable level” of death and destruction suffered from terrorism.

Please have a look at this Traffic Fatality Table. In the case of traffic fatalities we can look at some reasonably good data over long periods of time.

I’m not going to bother firing up the calculator, my off the top of the knucklehead estimates are sufficiently in the ballpark.

In the thirty years between 1966 and 1996, the annual traffic fatality number was reduced by 16% when comparing 1966 with 1996. The traffic fatality rate per 100,000 population was reduced by 1/3, the per 100,000 drivers reduced by more than 50%, per 100,000 vehicles by more than 50% and per 100 million miles driven by 2/3.

Those are all fatality rates except for the absolute numbers. It is impossible to know what the absolute number or the rates would have been had we simply kept on keeping on – we have no idea how many lives have been saved. It would be a monumental project to determine with any reasonable accuracy how much has been spent in both public and private funds to achieve these results – we have no idea how much this has cost us.

So you tell me, was whatever was spent to achieve whatever was achieved “worth it”? On what basis do you make that utilitarian cost/benefit analysis?

If it is possible to make similar improvements over 30 years from the 1996 numbers at unknown cost, would it be worth it to bear those costs?

As you ponder this keep in mind that much of those gains have come from (making a SWAG here but I believe it is a reasonable one) from improving two things: the safety of our roads and the survivability of our autos. Over the final few years of shown on that table, for example, the gains have largely “topped out” (we aren’t saving more people). This roughly corresponds to the increase in trying to achieve greater benefit through different means. Nearly ubiquitous airbags don’t seem to be making large impact nor does more rigorous enforcement of drunk driving laws. Is the money spent on those things, therefore, “wasted”?

Googling up what data is available since 1996 suggests that no additional gains have been made in total fatalities and that rates are dropping only marginally (i.e, we’re really struggling to squeeze out additionaly improvements). Yet poking around the NHTSA website should quickly suggest that efforts and cost have not stopped.

Which suggests, BTW, that we’ve played out the 80/20 rule for highway. The 80/20 rule (sometimes phrases as a 70/30 rule or a 90/10 rule) basically states that there is some maximum benefit (100%) that can be achieved at some maximum cost/effort (100%) and that 80% of the max. benefit will be achieved at 20% of the max. cost/effort. If you want the remaining 20% benefit you’re going to have to spend the remaining 80% cost/effort. Another way to think of this is at “going after the big ticket items” first (like highway improvements and auto safety standards) and then, if desired, continue slogging along at the difficult and expensive stuff – the diminishing returns.

To assist in your analysis here is some summary NHTSA budget information.

After you’ve practiced for a while pretending to make decisions that effect other people’s lives, stop and wonder if the world, or the US, with the exception of the current administration, has reached the 80/20 point of diminishing returns yet. I suggest we haven’t but that, if the current administration is given another 4 years, we’ll begin to approach that point.

Aug 16, 2004 - 1:14 pm 391. Charlie (Colorado):

Hmmm. Is this the same rationale for the S.D.I.?

No, the rationale for SDI was that threatening to destroy everyone was immoral. With a ballistic missle defense, MAD becomes “mutuality no longer assured” which means it’s even less smart to use them.

Aug 16, 2004 - 3:13 pm 392. Charlie (Colorado):

Yes, at that point the urge to nuke gets pretty high I’m sure. But, how do you nuke terrorists? Especially if they’re among us or always on the move?

Hollywood, you’re continuing to think about tactics rather than logistics and geopolitics. We wouldn’t nuke the terrorists, we’d nuke the remaining centers of support. Since the terrorists aren’t completely associated with any state, my guess is that the pressure to hit eveyone who might have been involved would be pretty strong: we might end up with the Holy Crater of Qum, Damascus missing, Mecca and Medina reduced to green glass.

Do enough of this and I think we can bet the remaining supporters would start turning over everyone who might possibly be associated with any terror operations.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I think this would be a Very Bad Thing. I agree, however, with the people who have suggested this might be the result of someone sneaking a 10 kT backpack into Times Square.

Aug 16, 2004 - 3:21 pm 393. hollywood:

Charlie (CO),

“Hollywood, you’re continuing to think about tactics rather than logistics and geopolitics.”

I’m thinking of the story about the mother who tells the teacher her son’s a sensitive boy. So, she suggests that if he misbehaves, just hit the kid next to him and he’ll straighten up.

In the abstract, variations on the Hisoshima solution seem politically incorrect [not to mention immoral], but given the sort of activity you imagine I can see it happening.

Aug 16, 2004 - 3:51 pm 394. hollywood:

I meant Hiroshima–sorry.

Aug 16, 2004 - 4:14 pm 395. Charlie (Colorado):

In the abstract, variations on the Hisoshima solution seem politically incorrect [not to mention immoral], but given the sort of activity you imagine I can see it happening.

Well, that’s kinda the problem: if (gods forbid) someone were to manage to get a knapsack nuke into Manhattan, not only would I never get my chicken soup with kreplach, but we could, entirely too easily, end up with the nuclear war that I spent most of my childhood dreading.

On the other hand, if we manage to stop this generation of fascism in the Sudetenland phase, maybe we won’t have to. That’s what I think the real issue is.

Aug 16, 2004 - 8:01 pm 396. hollywood:

charlie (colorado),

“On the other hand, if we manage to stop this generation of fascism in the Sudetenland phase, maybe we won’t have to. That’s what I think the real issue is.”

Don’t the candidates really agree on this? Then aren’t you left with whatever their purported stands on other issues are and their styles in terms of decision making?

Aug 16, 2004 - 8:11 pm 397. jerry:

Just to keep the thread going to at least 400…

Hollywood:

No, both candidates don’t agree on this. Kerry wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would turn Iraq back over to the Baathists or deliver it to Iran. He wants to “separate” Israelis and Palestinians using US Troops as a barrier. In reality, this is an application of the Kosovo solution, i.e., provide a shield to terrorists so they can strike at Israel unmolested. He favors supplying “peaceful” nuclear technology to Iran to show our good faith to the Mullahs. This is a deal that both Germany and France have just rejected. His policy for North Korea is to abandon the South and cut a deal directly and unilaterally with the North. This is not hyperbole. These are stated Kerry foreign policy positions. So to answer your question, no Kerry doesnít want to stop them in the ìSudetenlandî phase, he wants to enable them because he believes that US power is evil and must be contained by ìresponsibleî nations like France, Iran and North Korea.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:10 am 398. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

What evidence to you have that Kerry has foreign policy postitions that can be understood at all let alone interpreted as some intention to stop the Islamofascists now, before it will cost us WWII or worse levels of death and destruction (Charlie’s excellent Sudentenland Phase).

I see no indication from Kerry’s hairball of nuanced backtracking that he has any coherent foreign policy moving forward. His foreign policy related activities during his time in congress seem to indicate that he is always and unshakeably against US action even if he has to be for it before he’s against it.

As for decision making styles, what evidence that Kerry’s “decision making” style is anything more than, “OK, that seems like a good idea… no wait!… don’t do it that way… we need to talk more… what about the UN and France?… well, obviously is was the right decision but it was the wrong decision ’cause I would have made it differently.”

The man is an incoherent loon. Walk toward the ligh, Hollywood. You’ll feel better once you’ve made the brave decision to cast off the chains that bind you.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:40 am 399. hollywood:

jerry,

“No, both candidates don’t agree on this. Kerry wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would turn Iraq back over to the Baathists or deliver it to Iran.”

Have you got a source for this? Note the Knucklehead does not seem to agree.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:06 am 400. hollywood:

Speaking of withdrawals, here’s the NYT on Bush’s troop redeployments. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/opinion/17tue2.html

Is Bush serious about this or is it just electioneering?

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:29 am 401. jerry:

Hollywood:

Kerry has stated openly that he will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 6 months whether or not he can induce the French or the Germans to provide troops. (They can’t because they don’t have any.) He did recently say that he would have voted to grant the authority to go to war if we knew pre-war what we now think we know about the WMD. However, Kerry has not changed his mind as to reason he voted for the resolution, i.e., as leverage for negotiations but not with intent of actually going to war. In other words, Kerry has not changed his actual position from 1990 where he opposed the liberation of Kuwait. He just wanted to slow-roll the President to insure Saddam Hussein remained in power. Show me any evidence the Kerry has changed his position on security issues since he lied about Christmas in Cambodia in the Senate while he was trying to prop up the Communists in Nicaragua. We know what his position on the GWOT is. There is none, the threat is overblown and we should go back to the 1990s where we used law enforcement to solve the problem.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:34 am 402. jerry:

hollywood:

This is for real. We are withdrawing from old Europe because there is no threat. Now lets see if they can defend themselves. As far withdrawing forces from the Korean Peninsula. I think that is a bad idea. Asians require boots on the ground to believe that we are still committed to their security.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:37 am 403. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

Why would withdrawal of two US divisions (to be replaced by Stryker brigades) be “electioneering”? The value (or lack thereoff) of keeping two US divisions in Germany has been a matter of discussion for years – long before Bush and The Neocon Cabal ran their Zionist coup and wiped democracy off the face of the planet.

It makes very good sense in terms of military force deployment. Redeployment is necessary to meet changing realities. Keeping significant forces in Wesern Europe just isn’t called for anymore. For one thing, Europe is wealthy enough to provide for their own defense should the idea ever interest them. For another thing, given NATOs unwillingness to expand its role, there seems no need for us to commit such large forces.

On the matter of changing realites, for example, see this article regarding the shifting of global power structures. There are better articles out there on the topic, but that one was at hand. Its just a “think about this sort of thing” pointer.

Jerry,

I could be mistaken, but I thought the suggestion for SK was to draw down forces there by 12,000 (one division?). We currently keep, IIRC, roughly 36,000 troops (I haven’t looked at the order of battle for this, but that number sounds like approx. three divisions). Keeping that many troops on the DMZ in Korea has seemed, to me at least, a bad idea for a long time, especially since Ill Kim apparently got nukes. IIRC2 we floated a proposal to pull back from the DMZ and reposition further south but the SKs had a hissey-fit.

IMO SK is big enough and wealthy enough to defend themselves. I’d rather have our troops positioned much differently over there than they currently are (isn’t it a good thing nobody pays me to decide where to put our troops ;>). If drawing down by 1/3 over there makes sense, I’m all for it. What we have on the DMZ seems like way too much for a trip-wire, die-in-place deployment to me.

BTW yet again, if the 9/11 hadn’t happened I think we would have seen Rumsfeld pushing for this sort of redeploy a while back, but the WoT has been a bit of a distraction from global positioning.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:10 am 404. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

What do you think about this sort of troop withdrawal?

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:34 am 405. jerry:

knucklehead:

This issue isn’t military utility it is the Asian psychology of commitment. SK provides 90%+ of the forces on the peninsula just as they did during the Korean War. Military manpower is not the issue. To the Asian mind, over the horizon support, no matter how militarily significant does not show real commitment. Those forces may come, but again they might stay at home when push comes to shove. Regional players may view this as an intent to withdraw from the region. Asians, with their much longer historical memories will begin to fear a more assertive Japanese defense policy. Any Japanese move in this direction will set off alarm bells from Australia to India.

Kerry’s advisors are against the entire package of course. Our withdrawals will upset the Germans. I don’t think Kerry cares about the SK. He reflexively identifies with NK.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:42 am 406. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

I understand your point about maintaining physical presence to satisfy the Korean’s notion of commitment. And let’s say that that satisfying their definition of commitment is the proper course of action (rather than, for example, decommitting or repositioning and insisting that we remain committed).

The US maintains approx. 37,000 troops in SK (source). I’ve poked around trying to figure out what the redeploy plans for SK are, but that seems fuzzy at best and I can’t tell if the “12,000″ number I had in my head was the number supposed to come out for duty in Iraq or was a permanent draw down (maybe both). There have, apparently, also been plans floated to reconfig out Asian forces and cease treating SK as a “four star” command.

All these are decommitments in one way or another. Does everything need to remain “as is” to convince SK that we remain “committed”? Do we have to maintain 37,000 or would 15,000 demonstrate ample “commitment”? Do they have to be on the DMZ or can we repostion?

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:02 am 407. jerry:

knucklehead:

This is getting a little close to a project that I am directing so I really don’t want to get down to details. As I was told in staff meeting today tI really don’t want to be the next security violation.

However, I do want reemphasize the negative regional consequences of a US drawdown. The region is more interested in the delta not the level of uses forces. The concerns are not just felt on the Korean Peninsula. There is concern in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia and as far west as India and as far south as Australia. The regional fear is that without a large US presence in the region Japan will begin to expand its power projection military capabilities. Unlike in North America and Europe, WWII and its attendant Japanese atrocities are still real to the people region. If you were to visit any Asian country occupied by the Japanese during the war on August 6th you will not find any sympathy for Hiroshima. Everyone else out there things it was well deserved. If Japan starts rearm it could set off a regional race to rival early 20th century Europe. Under those circumstances, the region will become unstable. Any US redeployment of US forces away from the region has to be managed very carefully. We are not doing that. Itís a disaster in the making not in the next 5 years but 15-20 years down the road.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:41 am 408. Knucklehead:

Thanks, Jerry. I realize there’s no love lost for the Japanese due to their actions before, and during, WWII. What I didn’t realize is what a large bargaining chip keeping troops in place can be and, conversely, what a real threat removing them can be.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:55 am 409. Charlie (Colorado):

Don’t the candidates really agree on this? Then aren’t you left with whatever their purported stands on other issues are and their styles in terms of decision making?

I think this may have been beaten to death already, but since you asked me directly, no, I don’t find their positions on the war to be all that similar. Bush said “we have to defend the US, and the best way is to eliminate fascism”, Kerry said “We have to defend the US no matter what, but I’d do it better, and we wouldn’t do anything until we have the world community involved, and we’d only act in response to an actual attack, and we have to be realistic about whether we can actually help free other people from fascism.”

I don’t like a lot of his other policies either.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm 410. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood — wr.t. the German troop withdrawals, do you have any thoughts of your own on the topic? Or are we back to linking because you aren’t actually all that well informed?

Hint: I don’t know that I’m willing to keep putting effort into these things if all you can do is link and quote. There’s little fun in that.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:03 pm 411. hollywood:

Knucklehead,

While I can appreciate your ire, I thought we were talking about boots on the ground, not boots in the ground. [Of course, when we do bring dead soldiers home, Bush doesn't want us to see that.]

Basically, I think we’ve got real stuff to worry about as opposed to thumbing our noses at France.

Charlie (Colorado),

Thanks for your reply. Are these actual quotes (not that quotes matter to politicians), or are you paraphrasing? My point is that since we are in the middle of the Iraq situation, I don’t see the election changing what happens going forward. Whoever is elected has to deal with the realities based on the information provided by the same folks that are currently in place on the ground.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:14 pm 412. hollywood:

“Hollywood — wr.t. the German troop withdrawals, do you have any thoughts of your own on the topic? Or are we back to linking because you aren’t actually all that well informed?”

My thought is that there’s this fear that Kerry would withdraw mammoth amounts of troops from Iraq as if he could do this overnight. Yet at the same time, here’s Bush floating the idea of withdrawing some troops from other areas in what seems like an attempt to say I can withdraw troops, too; I’m just more thoughtful about whre I withdraw them from. I guess I don’t buy it.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:18 pm 413. Charlie (Colorado):

Hollywood, they’re clearly not actual quotes; I thought the context and phrasing would make it obvious. Sorry, I’ll remember how literal-minded you get next time.

They are, however, real statements of what appear to be the actual positions, based on what they have said. I’ll grant that the Kerry positions have been translated from the “nuanced”, and that I left out the part about promising to start withdrawing US troops within six months.

As far as what Kerry would really do: if the choice is between someone who says he would do what I think is best, and someone who says he would not but who, you think, would be forced by events to do what I think is right, which one do you think I’d choose?

Which one would you choose? The one who does what he says, or the one who you think would not do what he says but you hope would do what the first one said?

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:25 pm 414. jerry:

hollywood:

Where did you get the idea that we are withdrawing troops from Europe to thumb our nose at France? For one thing we don’t have any living troops in France. If these withdrawals were meant to “punish” France and Germany then we would be pulling of the Balkans today. It always has been a European and not a US mission. What’s more, it has degenerated into a ìprotect Muslim terroristî operation in Kosovo.

You are also pretty dense about Kerry’s plans for Iraq. He has said in the last week that he intends to begin withdrawing from Iraq within his first 6 months in office regardless of whether France and Germany send troops or not. What part of withdrawal don’t you understand? He did not support the liberation of Kuwait. He has stated repeatedly that his vote for the authority to go war was a tactic to use in negotiations which would have left Saddam power. What part of “I support Saddam Hussein” don’t you get?

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:27 pm 415. Charlie (Colorado):

Jerry, I see you’re point about Japan and the rest of the Far East, and for all of my nipponophilia I probably agree.

I think in both cases, though, that the announced withdrawals may also, as Johnson said, concentrate the mind wonderfully. Maybe the South Koreans — &c — will, under pressure, catch on that we aren’t going to continue the Sugar Daddy role if we aren’t getting a little lovin’ every once in a while.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:31 pm 416. hollywood:

Charlie (Colorado),

“Which one would you choose? The one who does what he says, or the one who you think would not do what he says but you hope would do what the first one said?”

That is the question. Sadly, I don’t think we can base our response on what either candidate or his surrogates say during the campaign. It seems axiomatic that candidates can’t advise of their real positions [assuming they know what those positions are]and try to get elected simultaneously. I’m thinking of the link to the Goldwater piece posted yesterday (Pete Hamill?). I go by sort of a gut feeling, and in the case of this election, I’ll admit my gut is more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:23 pm 417. hollywood:

jerry,

My thumbing our nose at France comment related to Knucklehead’s suggestion that we dig up our war dead from French cemetaries and ship them home.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:26 pm 418. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

While I can appreciate your ire…

There was no ire involved. I’d hoped you would read the article including the links. I came across it while searching out something else and was legitimately interested in what you thought about it. I suppose I discovered that.

I thought we were talking about boots on the ground, not boots in the ground.

One cannot talk about “boots on the ground” without taling about why they are on the ground where they are. Why they went there and whether or not there is still good reason to put them there. The article I pointed to, and asked your opinion about, if you would have avoided your visceral reaction, might have shown you that American boots have gone to ground in Europe on several occassions for good reasons. And they’ve been withdrawn on several occassions and from varous portions, for different reasons.

It would also have shown that not only have many good young men died, but that their deaths are not long appreciated by those for whom they’ve died – the presence even of their cemeteries becomes a source of anomosity and resentment.

It also shows that France, as an example, has had less commitment to NATO than has the US for many years.

What reason remains for the US to have a larger commitment to NATO than, for example, France?

[Of course, when we do bring dead soldiers home, Bush doesn't want us to see that.]

Do you never tire of preposterous memes? Do you ever do homework to figure out if the meme that is about to burst forth from your fingertips has any basis in truth.

Spare us the memes. You may be rigid enough in your thinking to believe this sort of tripe, but few others here are.

Basically, I think we’ve got real stuff to worry about as opposed to thumbing our noses at France.

Do you mean, perhaps, important stuff like where our troops should and shouldn’t be deployed, whether or not they’ve oulived their usefulness and, even, their welcome on the soil of former allies? Important stuff like that, perhaps, rather than petty horseshit like whether or not Germany will “be happy” about a redeployment or whether or not their is some petty political benefit to be gained by yet another infantile whine about “the timing! the timing! Bush just wants to do this NOW for political gain and the fact that its been talked about and proposed and entirely sensible for years now is irrelevant!”

You really need to start thinking about growing up, Hollywood. You can’t reamin a recalcitrant adolescent forever.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:29 pm 419. Knucklehead:

Hollywood:

My thought is that there’s this fear that Kerry would withdraw mammoth amounts of troops from Iraq as if he could do this overnight. Yet at the same time, here’s Bush floating the idea of withdrawing some troops from other areas in what seems like an attempt to say I can withdraw troops, too; I’m just more thoughtful about whre I withdraw them from. I guess I don’t buy it.

Can you really not see the sheer idiocy of what you said there? Is every-freakin-thing in the world nothing more than political ping-pong to you?

Drawing down troops from Europe is not a new idea spit out in reaction to John Kerry’s moronic pronouncements. It is the right thing to do and has been.

Kerry blathers about pulling out troops from where they are needed and you think its a great idea. The president talks about pulling troops from where they have long sinced ceased to serve a purpose and, at the same time, identifies the types of units that will replace them to maintain our commitment to NATO, and you see that as nothing more than an election cycle reaction.

Now I’ve got some ire and this is how I show it. Open your fucking eyes and, better yet, open your fucking mind. Your small mindedness is not healthy for you.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:37 pm 420. hollywood:

“Kerry blathers about pulling out troops from where they are needed and you think its a great idea. {I don’t think I said that.]The president talks about pulling troops from where they have long sinced ceased to serve a purpose and, at the same time, identifies the types of units that will replace them to maintain our commitment to NATO, and you see that as nothing more than an election cycle reaction.[that and the fact the NYT says it would cost taxpayers more money.]

“Now I’ve got some ire and this is how I show it. [ok]Open your fucking eyes and, better yet, open your fucking mind. [I do the best I can with my highly limited faculties.]Your small mindedness is not healthy for you.” [Is this some kind of mind-body dualism problem? I think I'm too inconsistent to be entirely smallminded.]

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:01 pm 421. Charlie (Colorado):

That is the question. Sadly, I don’t think we can base our response on what either candidate or his surrogates say during the campaign.

Why not? I can’t think of a single time that Bush hasn’t acted more or less exactly as he said he would — with the exception that he decided that nation-building was necessary after 9/11. In that one case, he changed his direction in response to a clear and specific event, clearly stated his intention, stuck to it — and, as far as that goes, changed it to agree with what I thought.

As I said, if it’s a choice between someone who says he’ll do what I think he ought to do, and gives me reason to believe it, versus someone who says he’d do something, but he can’t tell me for sure what, except that it’d be better … it’s not difficult.

I go by sort of a gut feeling, and in the case of this election, I’ll admit my gut is more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry.

Right. We’re back to that point where your opinion isn’t being stated based on some argument, but effectively as an axiom. Again, as a logician, I accept that. But when you state an axiom and try to apply it to the real world, you have to test it against that real world.

So, riddle me this: what action do you expect Kerry would take that would be different from Bush, why do you think that’s what would happen, and what would you predict happening as a result?

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:23 pm 422. Charlie (Colorado):

Kerry blathers about pulling out troops from where they are needed and you think its a great idea. The president talks about pulling troops from where they have long sinced ceased to serve a purpose and, at the same time, identifies the types of units that will replace them to maintain our commitment to NATO, and you see that as nothing more than an election cycle reaction.

I think this says, pretty succinctly, what the problem is. It’s not a matter of whether Hollywood prefers Kerry over Bush, it’s that Hollywood really does think anything Bush does is intrinsically wrong. (See above, w.r.t. “axioms”.) If we start out with the pre-rational — not “irrational” because “rational” refers to a process of reasoning, and axioms are what you need before you can start to reason — with the pre-rational assertion that “Bush is bad”, then no process of reasoning can arrive at any other conclusion.

So, Hollywood — where does this axiomatic assumption come from?

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:29 pm 423. hollywood:

Charlie & Co.,

“So, riddle me this: what action do you expect Kerry would take that would be different from Bush, why do you think that’s what would happen, and what would you predict happening as a result?”

Holy conundrum, Batman! I think/hope he’d be less abrasive with our (hoping again) allies, not act like some posturing cowboy and take a measured/nuanced approach to building a consensus thus resurrecting the moral authority we had after 9/11 and before the Iraqi invasion.

“It’s not a matter of whether Hollywood prefers Kerry over Bush, it’s that Hollywood really does think anything Bush does is intrinsically wrong. (See above, w.r.t. “axioms”.) If we start out with the pre-rational — not “irrational” because “rational” refers to a process of reasoning, and axioms are what you need before you can start to reason — with the pre-rational assertion that “Bush is bad”, then no process of reasoning can arrive at any other conclusion.

“So, Hollywood — where does this axiomatic assumption come from?”

It comes from spending 18 plus formative years in Texas, dealing with guys all too much like W. and not liking it (and them not liking me). I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 and my hopes for a better Bush were not realized. Just my opinion.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:57 pm 424. Charlie (Colorado):

Holy conundrum, Batman! I think/hope he’d be less abrasive with our (hoping again) allies, not act like some posturing cowboy and take a measured/nuanced approach to building a consensus thus resurrecting the moral authority we had after 9/11 and before the Iraqi invasion.

I still don’t know much about you, but I’ve begun to infer — from your job and what you seem to know well — that you’re significantly younger than I am. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

But I remember really clearly what it was like living in Germany during Reagan’s first term — in fact, I arrived in Frankfurt on Inauguration Day. Reagan was called a “posturing cowboy” and was supposed to be horribly abtrasive and losing us allies.

Ten years later, I was watching Pink Floyd perform “The Wall” at the place where The Wall really was.

The fact is, we haven’t lost any allies except — perhaps — Germany, and it looks more and more like the next election will put an administration that’s a lot more friendly to the US into power. Of the supposed allies we’ve “lost”, it turns out that they were being bribed — literally, and with billions of dollars — to subvert things for Saddam. Had been since long before Bush was elected.

Those weren’t allies: they were perfidious, faithless, and dishonorable fakes.

In the mean time — well, read Michael Totten’s articles about traveling through Tunisia. Read some things from elsewhere than the New York Times. The Poles don’t seem to think we’ve lost our “moral authority”.

Or explain to me: why do you think someone who has freed 50 millions from fascism has no “moral authority” — but the people who would have left those 50 millions to the murderers and torturers, the men who would keep women illiterate and in chadoors, can confer some kind of “moral” authority.

Or, if you don’t want to try either of those: figure out your own opinion. Which was more moral: ending Saddam’s regime, or continuing the sham of sanctions that was making him and his cronies rich, while they used the sanctions as an excuse to starve the children, withhold medical care, crush the people of Iraq?

It comes from spending 18 plus formative years in Texas, dealing with guys all too much like W. and not liking it (and them not liking me). I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 and my hopes for a better Bush were not realized. Just my opinion.

Support it. So far, you say you don’t like Bush because he reminds you of the guys who bullied or mistreated you in Texas. Are you still 11? Are you concerned with “moral authority” — or just getting revenge on Billy Ray who gave you a wedgie?

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:47 pm 425. jerry:

hollywood:

Do you know why Kerry voted against going to war in 1990? Well here it is. The “coalition was too fragile and not inclusive enought to support a war. Alternatively, he said that the public wouldn’t support it. Kerry talks like that when he wants to disguise his support for anti-American, left wing dictators. Remember in 1990 there was still an USSR and Iraq was its prinicpal ally in the region. Kerry supported Saddam’s takeover of Kuwait because he believed that Saddam was a progressive leader worthy of support while the Kuwaiti rulling party were tools of the United States. He still believes that today.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:00 pm 426. Charlie (Colorado):

I think the real question now is if we can hit 500 comments before we break Roger’s website.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:23 pm 427. hollywood:

Guys and girls,

You’ll have to break 500 without me. Duty calls. See ya round, just not for a while.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:39 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: