Reuters confirms that which may be seen for oneself by simply driving from Winnipeg or Saskatoon to Fargo, North Dakota;
The U.S. economy shot forward at an upwardly revised 5.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest growth in 2-1/2 years, as companies built up inventories and exports strengthened, a Commerce Department report on Thursday showed.
First-quarter growth in gross domestic product was more than triple the 1.7 percent annual rate recorded in last year’s fourth quarter, though still slightly below Wall Street economists’ forecasts for a 5.7 percent pace.
That’s a higher growth rate than the province of Alberta. (Under Clinton, the average year-over-year gross domestic product growth was 3.7 percent.)
With apologies to the late Lloyd Bentsen: you give me two trillion dollars in hot cheques and I’ll give you the illusion of prosperity. Bob Rae has nothing on Bush when it comes to purposely creating large deficits. Oh, and I forgot about the 12 million illegal workers. He’s a horrible president by any reasonable measure.
I know it’s hard for Liberals to grasp that there are 2 sides to every equation. But the opposite of debt is assets. In 2000 the S&P 500 started plunging from 1500 to 800, it has now climbed back to almost 1300. Clinton had the luxury of riding on the back of tax cuts and red tape cuts from the previous Reagan/Bush regimes.
GWB tax cuts have helped the economy recover nicely from the froth created during Clinton’s “dot com” era of Enron, WorldCom etc.
There are 2 self-contradictory ways that Reuters (a Bush bashing outlet) and the left can throw a wet blanket on the US booming economy, which grew by over 5% last quarter, with record low unemployment. The left says the economy just seems good but that’s just an “illusion” …
1. It’s because Bush started a war, war is good for the economy.
2. The deficit caused by the war is the real problem; war is bad for the economy.
Ok which is it?
It’s neither. It’s amazing that people think the military is an investment choice. Some people can’t seem to understand that like the police, the payback on the military is simply staying alive in a crime-ridden world.
Having said all that, other than by manipulating taxes and adding or subtracting red tape to the bureaucracy, Presidents and Prime Ministers can’t do much about the economy. It’s a free global economy. Government policy is really a choice between:
– Should your money be given to the geniuses in central planning, or
– Can you do a better job with your hard earned money?
I prefer to go with the guy who balanced the budget in the 90’s and didn’t send U.S. troops into a country without an exit strategy and a strategy to secure the peace after the war. The problem with guys like Bush and these hard-core southern Republicans like Cornyn and Tom DeLay is they’re so damn arrogant they think everything will always pan out for them. They bring God into everything even though they don’t even believe half the shit in the bible if the ends don’t justify the means.
The other thing is I don’t need to go into half a trillion dollar deficits to get the economy going. You could give tax cuts to the lower income brackets and simply give nothing to people making over 500K and the economy will still boom. In fact it might do better because rich people won’t go on spending sprees like people who actually worry about money.
The scuttlebut has it that the new Fed reserve chairman wants the US dollar to devalue and has the printing presses running 24/7 churning out US currency to circulate globally at a time when more international commerce is being done in currencies other than the US dollar. How do you spell inflation? Do you suppose there will be a contraction some where down the road when all that inflationary fiat paper is called back in?
Real estate and metals are leading the US markets, where paper investments are declining and the US dollar devaluation is pumping up the limping Loony to 1980s values….anyone paid in US dollars better spend it on some tradable commodity or watch his savings devalue rapidly.
“simply give nothing to people making over 500K and the economy will still boom”
Simple describes it perfectly. Eliminating tax cuts for those earning over $500K per year would have no appreciable impact on the deficit.
More BDS:
Congress votes for war. When the war gets tough it’s Bush’s war.(It will be the Democrats’ war within two years when it’s obvious to everyone that it’s been won).
Congress votes huge spending increases. When the deficit soars its Bush’s fault.
WLM…“savings devalue rapidly”. Why not put savings into US managed global companies that have the advantage of low cost production in India and China and the regulatory supervision of Elliot Spitzer.
Commodities? They’ve barely kept pace with inflation and don’t give you a return on your investment. Have a look at oil for example …
http://commonsblog.org/archives/cat_energy_independencenational_security.php
Emilio999 said:
“You could give tax cuts to the lower income brackets and simply give nothing to people making over 500K and the economy will still boom. In fact it might do better because rich people won’t go on spending sprees like people who actually worry about money.”
Not exactly. In fact, your reasoning is contradictory.
1) the reason the tax cuts for lower income brackets work economically (I support them in principle) is that poorer people have a higher “marginal propensity to spend” (mps) than higher income people. On average, if you give a poor person $1000, they are more likely to spend all or substantially all of it, probably on staple goods, than a wealthy person. People at higher income brackets are more likley to invest or save, probably because they can afford to.
2)Even if you were correct, and lower-income people had a lower mps than high-income people, this would be an argument in favour of tax cuts for the wealthy. Economic stimulus from tax cuts is created primarily by spending, unless you are trying to lower inflation or interest rates (in which case, why are you cutting taxes?). Consumer spending has been the primary driver of the U.S. economy ever since the tech bust.
……..
on a related note:
“simply give nothing to people making over 500K”
Excuse me, but since when does stealing (coercively appropriating) less of people’s money via taxes qualify as “giving” them anything?
If I robbed you at gunpoint, but let you keep $5 in your wallet, would you thank me for “giving” you $5?
Tax money is not government money to be distributed as the state sees fit. It belongs to the taxpayers.
Good idea nondenet.
Isn’t this is the first time in years that Canadians can get a reasonable buy on USA company shares listed on the Dow 30 index?
IIRC, it was Peter Lynch who made millions buying into the USA stock market when the US dollar was low.
I might take a small bet against the American dollar but I would never bet against the American economy.
Harper, Bush to meet again to forge a closer alliance
PM wants Canada to have bigger foreign role, ambassador says
Published: Friday, May 26, 2006
WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet one-on-one with U.S. President George W. Bush in July, a meeting that will “result in a closer working relationship between our security and intelligence forces,” Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson said yesterday.
Making a rare appearance before a U.S. congressional committee, Mr. Wilson told lawmakers that Mr. Harper plans a far more robust role for Canada in world affairs and will use his budding friendship with Mr. Bush to forge a closer alliance with the U.S.
Mr. Harper will be “proactive” in his efforts to repair Canada-U.S. ties and douse anti-American sentiment that grew because of the war in Iraq and the softwood lumber feud, Mr. Wilson told members of the House of Representatives committee on Western Hemisphere affairs.
“He is willing to take a stand,” Mr. Wilson said.
The 67-year-old envoy touted the “closer relationship” that is developing between Mr. Harper and Mr. Bush following the two leaders’ first meeting last month in Cancun, Mexico.
The two men will likely meet again on July 6 in Washington, in advance of the G8 summit in mid-July. …
http://www.voy.com/178771/15562.html
Did anybody find it some what strange that the USA economy was being compared to Albertas economy.That made no sence at all.
Why doesn’t that make any sense? Alberta has the best economy in Canada. The United States’ economy as a whole beats even that.
Mabe its me Eugene.Correct me if im wrong here.The USA has a 9 trllion dollar economy and thats being compared to Alberta?
The most telling thing about Emilio’s post is that he really believes that they (being the government) should “give” nothing to the rich. Typically, a socialist point of view in that he hasn’t the vaguest idea of who the government is, who’s money they should”give” or in fact who the “rich” are. Displaying the usual fuzzy thinking, he will go with the guy of the 90’s who never went to war, never actually did anything and therefore never needed an exit strategy. Actually, said guy was too busy keeping his interns on their knees in the oval office to notice that someone was getting ready to blow up the twin towers. As for the economy of the 90’s, better to thank Bill Gates.
Only a fool would bet against the US Dollar. Just because the CDN $ has crept up to .90 US, it still is neither hard currency or a “safe” currency [except maybe to the homers.] The world will continue to buy US Treasury Notes and Bonds because of their track record and history of stability. The FED will continue to raise interest rates which, among other things, help the US Dollar. The European economy is about in the same state as its multicultural state [check out the news in Holland in particular.] The US economy offers incredible stability and the Deficit, as a pct of GDP, is not as high as it has been. Pissing on the US economy is like pissing into the wind.
I’m not sure I understand the point of the post…is it to convince us that the U.S. economy is doing well? I mean, it’s not crashing down, but its not exactly healthy either.
If the 1st quarter projected growth is meant to impress, read on through the article to where it says rebuilding New Orleans accounts for a portion of that growth, and it’s expected to flatten out a bit as the year goes on.
As for comparing it to Canada, in what year did Canada ever outperform the US (GDP on a per capita basis I mean)? I’m serious…or seriously curious, I couldn’t find a year when that happened. If no one else can either, why exactly mention Bush or Clinton in the comparison with Canada?
Not an economist…these are things that I find curious…
Best,
TLN
PS. I just noticed that Kate was actually comparing US first quarter projected growth with Clinton’s annual GDP growth. How cute.
Here’s a fun project: Try comparing Bush’s annual GDP per capita growth to Clintons. Then, do the same with every other Administration for the last forty years. And survey says…
Kate, I don’t expect your trolls (and they are trolls) to be willing/able to understand that adding 2 trillion dollars to the US Federal debt is somewhat of a bad thing…but you’re smarter than that.
I’ll be forwarding your pro-deficit, pro-funny money, pro-illegal alien, pro-political correctness, pro-fake new holocaust stories, pro-journalistic malpractice views to some VERY influential members of the VRWC with a view to having you and the rest of your trolls booted out.
You can be right wing (note: pro-war != right wing). And you can support George Bush. But you cannot be right wing and support George Bush. That is simply illogical. Pick one or the other.
Bob
When you grow up you will realize politics is the art of the possible and no politician can be “All Things” to anyone but the simple minded.
Terrence Trent Gheyn got mad at me for defining him and his ilk as the full-on socialists (and moral relativists, I might add) that they are, then trolled:
“When you grow up you will realize politics is the art of the possible and no politician can be “All Things” to anyone but the simple minded.”
Hey, you didn’t call me “Hitler” or “Liberal”! Good for you, Terry! Good for you! I think we can build on this… 😉
Bob,
When you grow up you won’t try to define someone on the basis of one post or their position on one issue- or several for that matter. But you clearly aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are so it will take you a long time to grow up. When you do we can talk.
The fact you think I might call you Hitler shows we’re not ready to have a conversation. You may be an immature know-it-all punk leftist but Hitler? Grow up. This is an adult website.
Terry, Bush’s approval rating is 29%. Rush Limbaugh says the illegal immigrant issue has pissed off the Republican base more than any issue in the past 20 years. Based on this, we can deduce that a good many (25% – 35%) Republicans are decidedly unimpressed with the Bush Administration, and that would probably go double for Canadian Conservative supporters.
Thus, it is illogical for you and the rest of the trolls – trolls– here to assume anyone critical of Bush is a leftist, or a liberal, or a Liberal, or “an immature know-it-all punk leftist”. Sticks and stones, etc.
Here is an interesting table comparing GDP per capita of different countries:
http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm
It looks list Canada came closest to the USA in GDP per capita during the high inflation of Carter’s “malaise”. The dot com bust, 9-11 and high natural resource prices have increased our numbers from the 1998’s 0.807 Canadian to US GDP per capita ratio to around 0.85 for the last couple of years. From this data it looks like Canadians make 15% less than Americans in the aggregate.
I know I shouldnt feed the trolls but this bob idiot is just to much. bob (I bet you use bob so no one can tell your spelling your name backwards.)
re: emilio999
Under Blowjob Bill’s “balanced budget”, the total US federal debt outstanding actually increased. How’s that you say? They “balanced” the budget by booking funds from social security. Instead of selling treasury bonds into the financial markets to cover the excess of spending over revenue, they simply took monies from the social security “lockbox” in exchange for special non marketable treasury paper. I think in common parlance, that’s called an “IOU”. The neat trick was treating the borrowed money just like other receipts or revenue in the budget.
It was balanced only in a world where “is” can have special meanings not found in a dictionary.
“Terry, Bush’s approval rating is 29%…Thus, it is illogical for you and the rest of the trolls – trolls- here to assume anyone critical of Bush is a leftist, or a liberal, or a Liberal, or “an immature know-it-all punk leftist”.” Bob
Bob, I wasn’t referring to anyone, I was referring to you. Discussion too complicated for you?
Bob,
Just so you know. Not all leftists have lost their way. There are still some who realize why they became leftists. From Power Line
—-
“Beginning with these words from T.S. Eliot, our friend Norm Geras eloquently explains why he and other British leftist have launched the Euston Manifesto, which calls for an unambiguous democratic commitment by the left, with no apology for tyranny:
Anyone who’s ever belonged to anything, as we all have – a family, a group, a club, a movement – will know that this involves having some quarrels. If you’re part of the left then you have your quarrels; and having been a part of the left all my adult life, I’ve had my share. But some things you quarrel about. About other things you draw a line.
Over 9/11 I decided the time had come to draw a line. A left truly committed to democratic values doesn’t make excuses for terrorism, not at all, not ever. Terrorism is murder. There is no context that makes it OK. This is a simple principle – that you do not wantonly kill the innocent – embodied in the most basic moral codes of civilized existence, embodied in the rules of warfare and in international humanitarian law.
The left paid a heavy price for its fellow-travelling with – its justification and apologetics for – the mass crimes of the Soviet Union in the twentieth century. For another generation to put its foot upon a similar path is not something any of us should look upon with indulgence. It’s the place to draw a line. You make an end and, if necessary, another beginning. The left has to be better than that.
Posted by Paul at 09:01 PM”
—
Then again there are limousine leftists like Jack. Living in subsidized housing while having a six figure family income. And now he wants to send troops to die in Darfur when the fight for the beginnings of Arab democracies is in Iraq. Darfur rather than Iraq- even though al Qaeda has announced that the centre of the war on terror is Iraq.
Islamists are killing Muslims in Darfur and Iraq. But Jack wants to go to Darfur. He’s checked it out. He’s okay with Darfur. There’s no oil in Darfur.
And lefists make fun of Bush! Highlarious.
Today’s leftists. With few exceptions. Nothing if not clueless.
Nomdenet said: WLM…“ Why not put savings into US managed global companies that have the advantage of low cost production in India and China and the regulatory supervision of Elliot Spitzer.”
Because any investment in China will ultimately accelerate their military aggression and secondly any investment that pays in US dollars will reflect the 20-40% deflation planned for the US dollar thus this will also depreciate your returns.
“Commodities? They’ve barely kept pace with inflation and don’t give you a return on your investment. Have a look at oil for example …”
That was Tongue in cheek sarcasm I hope…….if you had oil futures in 2003 when the US dollar started to deflate you’s be retired today…but you may want to let it ride as the Bilberbergs are predicting $150 a barrel by 2008….the prime indicateors predict a second metals bull marketm but of course you buy gold becase it will not depreciate as fast as an inflated fiat paper dollar…gold is a savings vehicle in inflationary times ( just buy at a good price)
WLM, actually I’m serious. As I suggested above, have a look at this graph on oil.
http://commonsblog.org/archives/cat_energy_independencenational_security.php
Sure you can pick some short-term blips from 2003 etc. I guess I’m suggesting that in terms of a long term store of value of say for example retirement funds , I would not want to hear that the CPP was loaded up on oil and gold. I’d prefer they were in the TSX, the S&P 500 (in a C$ or US $ currency, definitely not the Euro or Yen or Yuan).
In short, to bastardize Churchill, “ the North American economy is the worst place to invest except for all the rest”.
Having said all that, maybe we have an inherent meeting of the minds, by investing in the TSX, I guess I’m invested in commodities … :>)
Apparently no one else was able to figure out what the point of the post was either. Judging from the comments at least, which ranged from ‘U.S. economy can’t be stopped’ to a flame war between left and right, to a flame war between bushies and clintonites.
Forget all that, and just ask yourself these two questions:
1. Is it reasonable to compare Bush’s predicted first quarter GDP to Clinton’s Annual Average?
2. Does the fact that the U.S.’s growth was greater than Alberta’s tell us ANYTHING about how strong the U.S.’s economy is, given that Canada has NEVER (only looked about 40 years back) had greater GDP growth?
Two might need a bit of explaining, so here’s an example. Let’s say I race marathons and always beat my friend Ned. For the last four years I’ve always beat my friend Ned. The first year I beat him by 30min, the second year by 20min, the third year by 10, and last year by 5min. If someone said, Jeez, Ted isn’t doing that well. His running is getting worse, if he wants to get back to where he was, he should try this training style, or this, or this. Could I just say, “are you kidding? I ran five minutes faster than Ned!” Now think about the US. It always beats Canada. So just saying, it’s better than Canada, well that’s tells us nothing. If you are going to compare it to Canada, at least you’ve got to say how that relationship has changed. Is it much more than usual. About the same? Less?
In the words of Johnny (of Fantastic Four Fame), “Flame on!”
WLM, actually I’m serious. As I suggested above, have a look at this graph on oil.
http://commonsblog.org/archives/cat_energy_independencenational_security.php
Sure you can pick some short-term blips from 2003 etc. I guess I’m suggesting that in terms of a long term store of value of say for example retirement funds , I would not want to hear that the CPP was loaded up on oil and gold. I’d prefer they were in the TSX, the S&P 500 (in a C$ or US $ currency definitely not the Euro or Yen or Yuan).
In short, to bastardize Churchill, “ the North American economy is the worst place to invest except for all the rest”.
Having said all that maybe there’s an inherent meeting of the minds, by investing in the TSX, I guess I’m invested in commodities … :>)
Terry Gain Mulligan sliced: “Today’s leftists. With few exceptions. Nothing if not clueless.”
No argument there. But what you seem very slow to grasp is that you are the leftist in this scenario.
You can still be a good libertarian, conservative, or neo-con whilst simultaneously acknowledging the reality that the Bush Administration has been a disaster. A big-spending, statist, totalitarian disaster. If Harper starts spying on Canadians, endorsing illegal immigration, and running $30 billion dollar deficits in order to fake economic growth then I’ll be the first to speak out.
Bob
The NSA program is both legal and necessary. Hinderaker of Power Line covered this issue in depth months ago. You may have noticed that the majority of Democrats voted to confirm Hayden. They were unwilling to show their constiuents they were soft on terrorism.
I want the government listening in on people talking to al Qaeda. The right of ordinary citizens to life itself takes precedence over the freedom of terrorists to wreak havoc.
Of course as a libertarian you may believe that each of us is responsible for our own security.
Your descriptions of Bush as totalitarian and statist are bizarre. What totalitarian power does he exercise? In what way is he statist? Are you not aware that he was elected twice, the second time in the face of widespread opposition from the MSM?
There were four main reasons for the war to liberate Iraq.
1. Remove Saddam’s ability to support terrorism.
2. Deal with the Saddam’s breaches of the ceasefire Resolutions- backing down would have established an unacceptable precedent and would have provided Saddam with a huge propaganda victory;
3.End the humanitarian disaster in Iraq- (50,000 infants dying each year; 328,000 bodies buried in mass graves; absence of civil rights.)
4. Enable Iraqis to build a democracy and establish the rule of law. (In the belief this will change the nature of the region and eliminate these threats)
You are correct that these reasons cannot be described as totally conservative. On this we agree.
Unlike your opposition to the liberation of Iraq my support for it is not based on ideology but rather on a long range view of how best to respond to and defeat the Islamofascist threat.
Terry, although your comments were not addressed to me they interested me, and if you’re willing, I’l begin by taking you point for point and we’ll see where we go from there.
“The NSA program is both legal and necessary. Hinderaker of Power Line covered this issue in depth months ago.”
Powerline is not a legal scholar. Can we agree that legalit is establish by courts, and not presidents? If so, then we can say that the legality of the program is in question until such time as a court reviews it.
As for its necessity, that would depend upon (a) the threat and (b) the effect of the program versus other possible programs that would achieve the same effect. Ie) some may say that to get rid of a wart on my foot I need to cut it off, whether or not that is true depends on whether or not there are other methods of removing a wart on my foot. So can we agree that the necessity of this program is also open to debate?
“You may have noticed that the majority of Democrats voted to confirm Hayden. They were unwilling to show their constiuents they were soft on terrorism.”
Your statement about “democrats” is true of the seven democrats on the panel. I would suggest that a more accurate way of phrasing it would be a majority of democrats on the panel (4 of 7) voted to confirm Hayden. This is better because it avoids implying that a majority of all democrats are in favour of Hayden.
As for your second statement, I would tend to agree with you, but I cannot say for certain. It may be that they think as you do, that it is necessary and legal. Or they might think it is not, and are just trying to win votes. I’m not sure, and would hesitate to attribute motives to them without further evidence.
“I want the government listening in on people talking to al Qaeda.”
So does everyone. However, the NSA program quite clearly goes beyond that in that it monitors ALL calls made within the US. This is an important disctinction to make when defending the program.
“The right of ordinary citizens to life itself takes precedence over the freedom of terrorists to wreak havoc.”
This of course, is true. But no one has ever argued otherwise (quotes?).
“Of course as a libertarian you may believe that each of us is responsible for our own security.”
I’m not a libertarian so I’ll just let this one go.
“Your descriptions of Bush as totalitarian and statist are bizarre. What totalitarian power does he exercise?”
He has declared the ability to name someone an enemy combatant based on secret evidence, who can then be held without trial. When he visits a place, protesters can be arrested for disturbing the peace (ie. wearing a “bush sucks” t-shirt.) He also sets up “free speach zones” where protesters can gather. He also is ‘apparently’ willing to break laws if he interprets that the action he does is within the law (ie. he is the ultimate interpreter of the law, as opposed to a court). These things are indictive of totalitarianism, thought they do not place him anywhere near the list of top ten worst dictators.
“In what way is he statist? Are you not aware that he was elected twice, the second time in the face of widespread opposition from the MSM?”
I’m not sure what you mean by statist. Also, the MSM bias is a huge contentious issue that we should not engage in, in order to keep our debate more manageable.
“There were four main reasons for the war to liberate Iraq.
1. Remove Saddam’s ability to support terrorism.
2. Deal with the Saddam’s breaches of the ceasefire Resolutions- backing down would have established an unacceptable precedent and would have provided Saddam with a huge propaganda victory;
3.End the humanitarian disaster in Iraq- (50,000 infants dying each year; 328,000 bodies buried in mass graves; absence of civil rights.)
4. Enable Iraqis to build a democracy and establish the rule of law. (In the belief this will change the nature of the region and eliminate these threats)”
I’m fine with this, but I think you lose credibility among others by not acknowledging that the primary reasons given was an immanent threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Congress authorized him to use force in order to disarm Saddam, not to spread democracy. Again, I agree that your reasons are reasons, but the fact that you ignore the MAJOR reasons does a disservice to your argument.
“You are correct that these reasons cannot be described as totally conservative. On this we agree.
Unlike your opposition to the liberation of Iraq my support for it is not based on ideology but rather on a long range view of how best to respond to and defeat the Islamofascist threat.”
I will leave this to the side, since it again, seems to open up a vast area of debate and I would prefer to focus upon a smaller number of contentius issues in the hope that we may find some common ground.
Best,
T.
Ted,
Here’s my massive cut and paste reply to your post. For ease of reference I’ve numbered the points. The quotation marks are my statements from my post. (I would be indebted to anyone who could teach me how to use italics. When I use italics to prepare the post in Word they disappear when I post.)
1. “The NSA program is both legal and necessary. Hinderaker of Power Line covered this issue in depth months ago.”
—
TLN – Powerline is not a legal scholar. Can we agree that legalit is establish by courts, and not presidents? If so, then we can say that the legality of the program is in question until such time as a court reviews it.
—
TGG-Hinderaker is indeed a first rate legal scholar and lawyer. I said he dealt with the matter in depth. As I recall there are five appellate decisions of the Courts – though no Supreme Court decisions and all appellate decisions support the power of the President to conduct these kinds of operations under article 2 of the Constitution. The argument against this is based on the simplistic and faulty notion that an Act of Congress (FISA) could curtail the inherent Constitutional powers of a President.
2. TLN- As for its necessity, that would depend upon (a) the threat and (b) the effect of the program versus other possible programs that would achieve the same effect. Ie) some may say that to get rid of a wart on my foot I need to cut it off, whether or not that is true depends on whether or not there are other methods of removing a wart on my foot. So can we agree that the necessity of this program is also open to debate?
TGG- Are we dealing with a wart or a tumor in the brain? The program is of necessity secret although opposition members of the Intelligence committees have been briefed throughout and not one of them has stated that there have been any abuses.
3 “You may have noticed that the majority of Democrats voted to confirm Hayden. They were unwilling to show their constiuents they were soft on terrorism.”
—
TLN-Your statement about “democrats” is true of the seven democrats on the panel. I would suggest that a more accurate way of phrasing it would be a majority of democrats on the panel (4 of 7) voted to confirm Hayden. This is better because it avoids implying that a majority of all democrats are in favour of Hayden.
TGG- Ted, Hayden was confirmed by the Senate 78-15, not just approved by the panel. Fourteen of the 15 who voted against were Democrats and the 15th was Arlen Specter. Most Senators (Democrats and Republicans alike) would not have confirmed someone they thought was running an illegal program)
4. “I want the government listening in on people talking to al Qaeda.”
—
TLN- So does everyone. However, the NSA program quite clearly goes beyond that in that it monitors ALL calls made within the US. This is an important disctinction to make when defending the program.
TGG- I don’t have the data to do a calculation however if 150 million people each make 10 calls a day It would be impossible to “monitor” even 1/10,000ths of ALL calls. From what we know the only calls which are “monitored” are of suspected terrorists. The data mining aspect of feeding all numbers into a computer to determine who is calling al Qaeda cannot reasonably be described as “monitoring”. Think of all numbers being placed in a pitcher and then poured into a sieve. If you’re not calling one of the suspected terrorists your number would simply flow through the sieve.
5. “The right of ordinary citizens to life itself takes precedence over the freedom of terrorists to wreak havoc.”
—
TLN- This of course, is true. But no one has ever argued otherwise (quotes?).
TGG- Ted, see your comment below- where you implicitly argue otherwise. Well no one would directly argue otherwise but when- for crass political purposes people claim a program that protects them is illegal – (when they themselves support the program) or when people exaggerate the threat to our liberties by claiming that a program monitors the calls of ALL ordinary, non- terrorist – supporting, citizens, then if these arguments find favour with the public there will be inevitably be backing off from these programs.
6. “Your descriptions of Bush as totalitarian and statist are bizarre. What totalitarian power does he exercise?”
—
TLN- He has declared the ability to name someone an enemy combatant based on secret evidence, who can then be held without trial.
TGG- His country is fighting a war which was declared upon it by bin Laden in February 1998. In times of war the civil liberties of combatants must be curtailed for the greater good of all. Combatants have in fact been released from Gitmo only to take up arms again. Would you release these people and see what they do? His job is to protect his country not secure the civil liberties of his country’s enemies. There are plenty of people who have taken up that task.
Totalitarian? Ted, why would you give this word a meaning other than its historical meaning. Let me know when Bush defies a Court order.
7. TLN- When he visits a place, protesters can be arrested for disturbing the peace (ie. wearing a “bush sucks” t-shirt.) He also sets up “free speach zones” where protesters can gather. He also is ‘apparently’ willing to break laws if he interprets that the action he does is within the law (ie. he is the ultimate interpreter of the law, as opposed to a court). These things are indictive of totalitarianism, thought they do not place him anywhere near the list of top ten worst dictators.
TGG- Bush has in fact been very respectful of people’s right to dissent. There are of course people who think their right to drown him out is greater than his right to speak or the right of people to hear him. It’s easier to protest Bush than an abortion clinic – or do you think Parliament and the SCC is totalitarian?
8. TLN-He also is ‘apparently’ willing to break laws if he interprets that the action he does is within the law (ie. he is the ultimate interpreter of the law, as opposed to a court). These things are indictive of totalitarianism, thought they do not place him anywhere near the list of top ten worst dictators.
TGG- Actually Ted it is not apparent. What laws are you referring to? If it’s FISA every other President since its passage (except perhaps Carter) has claimed the same right to conduct warrantless eavesdropping against foreign agents. You really owe it to yourself to question these broad assertions. And it isn’t enough to qualify your allegation with the word “apparent”. It is a weasel word in this context. You seriously overestimate the power of the President (examine the Joe Wilson affair and how the MSM turned the real story on its head) and you fail to take into account the ridiculous extent to which Americans put the fortunes of their political party above their collective interests as a nation. As an example some Democrats want to either impeach or censure Bush for accepting the advice of his Clinton appointed Director of the CIA.
8. “In what way is he statist? Are you not aware that he was elected twice, the second time in the face of widespread opposition from the MSM?”
TLN-I’m not sure what you mean by statist. Also, the MSM bias is a huge contentious issue that we should not engage in, in order to keep our debate more manageable.
TGG- Not my word. I didn’t know what libertardian BOB meant by this.
9. Reasons for the war to liberate Iraq
—
TLN- I’m fine with this, but I think you lose credibility among others by not acknowledging that the primary reasons given was an immanent threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Congress authorized him to use force in order to disarm Saddam, not to spread democracy. Again, I agree that your reasons are reasons, but the fact that you ignore the MAJOR reasons does a disservice to your argument.
TGG- Bush did not say the threat was imminent. In fact he said he would not wait until the threat was imminent. (You may want to read the book Saddam’s Bomb to get some perspective on the threat Saddam posed.) Have you forgotten that Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998? It was implicit in the authorization that the U.S. would stay and help the Iraqis form a democratic government. This laudable endeavour should be supported by all freedom loving people. It is both a right wing (security) endeavour and a left wing (humanitarian) endeavour.
The political progress in Iraq has been phenomenal by any historical standard. The struggle to pacify Iraq has been more difficult than thought but significant progress is being made and IMHO over the next two years this will be obvious to everyone, as the ISF gain the expertise to destroy the terrorists in their midst. If Bush’s term ended in November 2006 the MSM and the Democrats might still be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but fortunately Bush has another 2.5 years. IMHO a small group of insurgents cannot defeat 28 million people backed by the most moral and lethal fighting force ever assembled.
They are truly inspiring- these young men and women risking their lives so that others may live free.
My best to you Ted
Terry, you are certainly able to defend yourself, but I find with my Liberal friends there is no point in having a discussion unless we can get past the bigger questions.
Are you for fascism or against it?
Do you want a theocracy or a democracy?
Do you think the female half of the population have equal rights or not?
Are we at war against Islamofascism or not?
You see the left doesn’t want to deal with what is really dangerous. They want to quibble about who had WMDs at a certain point in time, knowing full well we are living in a just-in-time inventory era and perverted dictators with oil for food money can get WMDs at the drop of a hat.
They “would prefer to focus upon a smaller number of contentious issues in the hope that we may find some common ground.”
These lefties like Jack Layton never get beyond the visible problems they saw as city councillors, e.g. the homeless. That is a problem. But it’s not the PM’s problem; it’s a problem for city councillors. The left wants to go back to a hunter/gather tribal community, where the village chief (PM) looks after the homeless. But a globally connected economy won’t work with a tribal form of governance. That’s the real strategy of the War on Terror to change the way the region is governed. Why the left won’t find “common ground” on that is mind boggling.
So to get back to the purpose of this post, the spectacular growth in the US economy indicated: Bush can walk and chew gum at the same time, Clinton could only do one thing at a time, we know what that thing was.
Terry,
Brilliant post. Before your next one, visit webmonkey.
First a note to Kate: I apologize for the thread jack.
Terry,
I appreciate the time you took to respond. It was very informative. I’m not sure how much more time you want to invest in this, but on the chance that it is greater than none, I have made a few more remarks. I have attempted to use italics, I guess I’ll see in a minute if it worked. I just used at the beginning of the passage, and at the end. Remove the periods. Assuming it worked that is.
1. “The NSA program is both legal and necessary. Hinderaker of Power Line covered this issue in depth months ago.”
—
TLN – Powerline is not a legal scholar. Can we agree that legalit is establish by courts, and not presidents? If so, then we can say that the legality of the program is in question until such time as a court reviews it.
—
TGG-Hinderaker is indeed a first rate legal scholar and lawyer. I said he dealt with the matter in depth. As I recall there are five appellate decisions of the Courts – though no Supreme Court decisions and all appellate decisions support the power of the President to conduct these kinds of operations under article 2 of the Constitution. The argument against this is based on the simplistic and faulty notion that an Act of Congress (FISA) could curtail the inherent Constitutional powers of a President.
—
TLN – I was unaware of Hinderaker’s impressive legal background, but my mistake on that point notwithstanding, I would stand by my prior assertion that the legality of the program is open to questioning. I fail to see how anyone could so strongly assert otherwise when the extent and exact nature of the NSA wiretapping is unknown. Hinderaker has indeed made a powerful case for the programs legality, but it remains just that, a case, untried before any court. Consider some of these impressive sounding people who argue that it is illegal: Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, Suzanne Spaulding, former general counsel for the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate, and former Counsel to the President. Then there are these equally impressive people who argue that it is legal: John Schmidt, former Associate Attorney General, Douglas Kmiec, chair of Pepperdine Law School, and John Eastman, Chapman Law Professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. With such a split, and such strong cases being made by each side, I would say again that “the legality of the program is in question”, although I would back off from the claim that only a court could clarify the issue, since I believe it might also be possible for congress to write a law, or (explicitly) grant the president the power to do so.
2. TLN- As for its necessity, that would depend upon (a) the threat and (b) the effect of the program versus other possible programs that would achieve the same effect. Ie) some may say that to get rid of a wart on my foot I need to cut it off, whether or not that is true depends on whether or not there are other methods of removing a wart on my foot. So can we agree that the necessity of this program is also open to debate?
TGG- Are we dealing with a wart or a tumor in the brain? The program is of necessity secret although opposition members of the Intelligence committees have been briefed throughout and not one of them has stated that there have been any abuses.
TLN- I think you have misinterpreted my point. I was trying to argue that we cannot say whether or not the program is necessary without also knowing (a) what the program does and (b) if there are other ways to acheive the same ends. I was not referring to the secrecy of the program, nor whether or not abuses are occuring in the program. It is certainly necessary to do *something*, but that doesn’t mean its the NSA wiretapping program or Terrorist Surveillance Program as it appears to be called. This isn’t a major point of contention between us (I think), I just wouldn’t call something necessary that if I didn’t know what it really did, how effective it was, or whether or not there were other things we could do instead. Thus, it might seem necessary to me to cut off my foot to remove a wart, but only if I didn’t know about, say, a drug that achieved the same end. If someone told me later about the drug I’d say, oops, wasn’t necessary to cut off my foot. Alternatively, maybe some says that the way to get rid of it is to stand in jello for an hour. If I did that and it didn’t actually get rid of the wart I would say it wasn’t necessary. I’m just applying the general principle to the case of a wart on a foot, but it applies equally well to the NSA program.
3 “You may have noticed that the majority of Democrats voted to confirm Hayden. They were unwilling to show their constiuents they were soft on terrorism.”
—
TLN-Your statement about “democrats” is true of the seven democrats on the panel. I would suggest that a more accurate way of phrasing it would be a majority of democrats on the panel (4 of 7) voted to confirm Hayden. This is better because it avoids implying that a majority of all democrats are in favour of Hayden.
TGG- Ted, Hayden was confirmed by the Senate 78-15, not just approved by the panel. Fourteen of the 15 who voted against were Democrats and the 15th was Arlen Specter. Most Senators (Democrats and Republicans alike) would not have confirmed someone they thought was running an illegal program)
TLN – My mistake.
4. “I want the government listening in on people talking to al Qaeda.”
—
TLN- So does everyone. However, the NSA program quite clearly goes beyond that in that it monitors ALL calls made within the US. This is an important disctinction to make when defending the program.
TGG- I don’t have the data to do a calculation however if 150 million people each make 10 calls a day It would be impossible to “monitor” even 1/10,000ths of ALL calls. From what we know the only calls which are “monitored” are of suspected terrorists. The data mining aspect of feeding all numbers into a computer to determine who is calling al Qaeda cannot reasonably be described as “monitoring”. Think of all numbers being placed in a pitcher and then poured into a sieve. If you’re not calling one of the suspected terrorists your number would simply flow through the sieve.
TLN – I have been a little sloppy in my presentation, conflating (in my mind) what could possibly be two separate programs. Let me be more clear. The NSA collects the phone records of pretty every person with a phone in the US. I say pretty much because it seems that at least one Telcom refused to provide that information. This is an apparently ongoing program, and is also apparently being doing without warrents. I conflate the two because the overarching issue is that these actions seem to violate the law. I agree with you that “from what we know” the only calls being listened to actively (directly monitored by the NSA) are of suspected terrorists and people in the US communicating with them. Is it legal? My point above. The data mining aspect of the program (indirectly monitored by the NSA, but if you don’t want to call it monitoring I’m not wedded to the term, analyzed, reviewed, noted, observed, what-have-you, it’s all the same thing a far as I’m concerned) does not restrict itself to catching calls made to terrorists. At least, from what little we know of it, that much seems clear. My point Terry (re: 4) is that everyone wants the phone calls of terrorists to be intercepted, but the NSA program provides no assurances that it is not listening in on people who are not talking to terrorists. Your point above relates to this somewhat, in that no D’s on the SOC have reported abuses. But this objection would fail for any who would make it, since even if abuses are occuring and being reported to the SOC they are not allowed to release that information to the public, AND it depends on the very questionable premise that abuses would be reported to the SOC. The second aspect of the program, the data mining aspect, probably doesn’t even respond to your point. You referred to “listening in” and I noted a program that doesn’t listen in.
5. “The right of ordinary citizens to life itself takes precedence over the freedom of terrorists to wreak havoc.”
—
TLN- This of course, is true. But no one has ever argued otherwise (quotes?).
TGG- Ted, see your comment below- where you implicitly argue otherwise. Well no one would directly argue otherwise but when- for crass political purposes people claim a program that protects them is illegal – (when they themselves support the program) or when people exaggerate the threat to our liberties by claiming that a program monitors the calls of ALL ordinary, non- terrorist – supporting, citizens, then if these arguments find favour with the public there will be inevitably be backing off from these programs.
TLN – Your going to have to be more precise on this point. It’s a serious accusation Terry, that I implicitly argue that ‘the freedom of terrorists to wreak havoc takes precendence over citizens right to life’. I find the statement so ridiculous as to barely merit attention, but since you’re suggesting that I somehow adopt this idiotic stance you should at least have the decency to show clearly where I have written something that would indicate to you or anyone that I believe this (and am either in denial, or lying about my true feelings).
6. “Your descriptions of Bush as totalitarian and statist are bizarre. What totalitarian power does he exercise?”
—
TLN- He has declared the ability to name someone an enemy combatant based on secret evidence, who can then be held without trial.
TGG- His country is fighting a war which was declared upon it by bin Laden in February 1998. In times of war the civil liberties of combatants must be curtailed for the greater good of all. Combatants have in fact been released from Gitmo only to take up arms again. Would you release these people and see what they do? His job is to protect his country not secure the civil liberties of his country’s enemies. There are plenty of people who have taken up that task.
TGG -Totalitarian? Ted, why would you give this word a meaning other than its historical meaning. Let me know when Bush defies a Court order.
TLN – I don’t think I’m stretching the words use here. Indeed, there may be very good reasons for the US moving in a direction and undertaking activities that are characteristic of totalitarian regimes, but your points about the justification are secondary to the primary point of whether or not they are moving in that direction. As for letting you know when he defies a court order, see points above regarding the legality of the NSA program.
7. TLN- When he visits a place, protesters can be arrested for disturbing the peace (ie. wearing a “bush sucks” t-shirt.) He also sets up “free speach zones” where protesters can gather. He also is ‘apparently’ willing to break laws if he interprets that the action he does is within the law (ie. he is the ultimate interpreter of the law, as opposed to a court). These things are indictive of totalitarianism, thought they do not place him anywhere near the list of top ten worst dictators.
TGG- Bush has in fact been very respectful of people’s right to dissent. There are of course people who think their right to drown him out is greater than his right to speak or the right of people to hear him. It’s easier to protest Bush than an abortion clinic – or do you think Parliament and the SCC is totalitarian?
TLN – It doesn’t matter if Bush respects dissent. It doesn’t matter if people try to drown him out. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to protest and abortion clinic. The fact is that dissent is regulated and policed where Bush travels, and this is a characteristic that makes pushes Bush towards totalitarian. Of course, I would argue that when you regulate dissent you do not respect people’s right, but you could argue otherwise and I could even concede it and still maintain that the ‘respectful’ regulation of dissent is still more characteristic of a totalitarian regime than a democractic one.
8. TLN-He also is ‘apparently’ willing to break laws if he interprets that the action he does is within the law (ie. he is the ultimate interpreter of the law, as opposed to a court). These things are indictive of totalitarianism, thought they do not place him anywhere near the list of top ten worst dictators.
TGG- Actually Ted it is not apparent. What laws are you referring to? If it’s FISA every other President since its passage (except perhaps Carter) has claimed the same right to conduct warrantless eavesdropping against foreign agents. You really owe it to yourself to question these broad assertions. And it isn’t enough to qualify your allegation with the word “apparent”. It is a weasel word in this context. You seriously overestimate the power of the President (examine the Joe Wilson affair and how the MSM turned the real story on its head) and you fail to take into account the ridiculous extent to which Americans put the fortunes of their political party above their collective interests as a nation. As an example some Democrats want to either impeach or censure Bush for accepting the advice of his Clinton appointed Director of the CIA.
TLN – I’m not sure how to respond to this Terry. You seem to be bother by how I phrased my point, so let me try to be more clear and precise. The legality of actions taken by Bush are in doubt (ie. NSA, see above). To the extent that Bush takes actions that go outside the law, we could marshal those illegal actions as support for an argument that Bush & Co. exhibit totalitarian-esque behaviours. Your comment that it is a ‘weasel word’ is stupid. You know very well that I was trying to make it clear that I did not believe it was clear that Bush has violated the law. But rather than just accepting that, you’ve chosen to rant about Joe Wilson, Political Opportunism, and Bush or Clinton or something. All of that is irrelevant as far as (8) is concerned. Central to this discussion is the legality of the NSA program. You’ve argued it’s legal. I’ve argued that its legality questionable. For you to suggest that me making a qualified statement about the implications of the program (if true then x) is weasley or “not enough” is just… I mean I don’t even know how to respond to that. What other sort of statement would I make that I could defend? That he has broken the law therefore X? That he has not broken the law therefore X? Or is it simply that I used the word “apparently” and this somehow upset you, even though your later statements make it very clear that you knew I was trying to make a qualified statement?
And keep in mind the overall argument here (of mine, since I’m not sure how strongly Bob would have phrased it), that Bush exhibits/takes totalitarian like behaviours/actions. Bush & Co. through their actions (which I will admit — just for the sake of argument — have been reasonable and justified) have moved the US closer towards being a totalitarian state than it was before they took power.
9. Reasons for the war to liberate Iraq
—
TLN- I’m fine with this, but I think you lose credibility among others by not acknowledging that the primary reasons given was an immanent threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Congress authorized him to use force in order to disarm Saddam, not to spread democracy. Again, I agree that your reasons are reasons, but the fact that you ignore the MAJOR reasons does a disservice to your argument.
TGG- Bush did not say the threat was imminent. In fact he said he would not wait until the threat was imminent. (You may want to read the book Saddam’s Bomb to get some perspective on the threat Saddam posed.) Have you forgotten that Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998? It was implicit in the authorization that the U.S. would stay and help the Iraqis form a democratic government. This laudable endeavour should be supported by all freedom loving people. It is both a right wing (security) endeavour and a left wing (humanitarian) endeavour.
The political progress in Iraq has been phenomenal by any historical standard. The struggle to pacify Iraq has been more difficult than thought but significant progress is being made and IMHO over the next two years this will be obvious to everyone, as the ISF gain the expertise to destroy the terrorists in their midst. If Bush’s term ended in November 2006 the MSM and the Democrats might still be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but fortunately Bush has another 2.5 years. IMHO a small group of insurgents cannot defeat 28 million people backed by the most moral and lethal fighting force ever assembled.
They are truly inspiring- these young men and women risking their lives so that others may live free.
TGG – Your response does not address my point, and while we could have a debate about the word “immament”, I will just rephrase my point because I think it is one that is relatively easy to settle between us. Your reasons that you initially listed for going to war, did not include the most important, talked about, central to everyone’s mind, point, presented to the world, the UN, congress, and the American people: That saddam had weapons of mass destruction. My point was that not including that major, major, majorly important reason in a list of reasons for going to war, damages the credibility of the person making the list. You know it was a reason, I know, everyone knows, and I was just saying that if you don’t list it people ask themselves “why doesn’t he mention WMD’s as a reason for going to war”?
Best,
Ted.
Ted,
I only have time to respond to two points. You stated that “Bush was apparently willing to break the law” when what you apparently meant was ” Bush was arguably willing to break the law”. You should choose your words more carefully rather than call me stupid. When the existing case law supports what someone is doing it’s bad form to accuse that person of breaking the law because you think a higher court might, in future, overturn the existing law. Bush should be given the same consideration as would be given to anyone else. I think the chances of SCOTUS ruling that the NSA program is illegal are somewhere between slim and none.
As to reasons for going to war WMD was included in my point number one: Remove Saddam’s ability to support terrorism.
The main threat was not that Sadddam would use WMD but that he would collaborate with terrorists (think Abdul Rahman Yasin). I predicted no WMD would be found. Saddam had six months to dispose of his stockpiles after he knew the U.S. was coming. He retained his capacity to re-start his programs and IMHO he would have re-started them the moment the world turned its back on him. IMHO the unwillingness to acknowledge this is the real intelligence failure.
Terry, I enjoyed our discussion.
I think you are continuing to quibble however about the word “apparently”, when it is clear from your later statements that I was simply trying to qualify the statement about what implications his apparent, supposed, potential, law-breaking would have.
Second, I did not call you stupid. I’d called your comment stupid. Just like you did not call me a weasel, you called the word I used a ‘weasel’ word.
Last, the point regarding reasons for Iraq was a stylistic one. I found your reasons less convincing because you hadn’t (explicitly) included WMD’s. I am perfectly willing to accept your explanation, and don’t doubt you on the point.
Best,
T.