This isn't the first article I've read where the White House is clueless on how to help their fellow GOPers. Just another example of how the Republicans are too stupid to know how to maintain their power base. At least the Democrats know how to wield power when they've got it.

Of course, Bush will be out of office when Thune faces the potential to be booted out himself.

Having worked for DoD so many years, the BRACs are always interesting. I also find it interesting that Pascagoula NAS, in Trent Lott's hometown, has not been removed from the current list. He was a bad boy, he's no longer Majority Leader, and he must pay. Good to see Republicans turn on themselves.

I nearly fell off my chair when I read your comments, MIB. My goodness, there may actually be some fair and impartial thinking going on in that noggin of yours. I told you Tang was much better than Kool-Aid. I'm surprised to see Novak still has a gig at the Suntimes. Oh wait, that's the sixth-grader newspaper here in town. Never mind the surprise.

Really? I have a different take. I think it is commendable to close the base if it needs closing regardless of whose back needs scratching. You know, doing their job and all that.

Perhaps, orsino, but from a political perspective, Bush and company screwed up, and this ain't the first time, either.

As someone who long ago stopped his subscription to the Tribune, I much prefer the Sun-Times, and not because it's easier to read. I got sick of the Trib for several reasons into which I will not go right now; I don't want to take this thread off track.

You know, this is a good example of how one-way the Republicans are about DoD. They act like all the other departments of Government are merely job programs, but DoD, beyond reproach. It's too important for such political games. But watch 'em scream when it comes to their town losing a base and the billions of dollars that will be lost in that locality.

DoD is not exempt from the same politics that affects all of Government.

Here's a good example. In Montgomery AL, they have always had Maxwell AFB on the west side of town and Gunter AFB (but sometimes AFS in the past) on the other side of town. During one of the former BRACs, to mitigate their risk of losing one or the other, they merged them supposedly. Now Gunter is an annex to Maxwell, even though they are nowhere near adjacent to one another. Now when I say merged, they still have all the same crap they always had. But now they are one and have remained so for well over ten years now. Just a little political slight of hand to protect their pork.

The problem is if that's your Congressman protecting those jobs in your district, he's a hero. But if those damn Yankees do the same, their guy's just flat-out treasonous. Ruining the whole damn country.

One more example. On the Mississippi Gulf Coast, all 60 miles of it, you have Pascagoula NAS, Keesler AFB, Gulfport SeaBee base, and a NASA site. Lots of Government jobs and military personnel. And those right-wingers sing the same tired national song they have learned on Fox about reducing the size of Government. They don't think long enough to realize that they are winning at the game, their state (poorest in the country) brings back many more federal dollars than it sends to Washington. But they haven't thought it all the way through, just parroting the evil ones on Fox.

If you think of politics as dividing up the pork pie, then isn't the Congressman who brings you the biggest piece of pie the best Congressman?

And when your own party won't share the pie with you any more, it's time to get a new pie delivery man.

You want a better--or worse depending on how you look at it--example? Try the highway transportation bill!

Don't even get me started on that ridiculous boondoggle! Bush the Wuus wouldn't even veto it, either. :mad:

So true, the party of less government has amazed me. They control it all and dammit, to hell with all those principles they taught us in poli sci class. Spend, spend, spend, and oh yeah, cut taxes. Wouldn't want to actually pay for any of it.

Hey! Cutting taxes is great, and DOES help the economy, but going hog wild on bills like the highway bill is just asinine.

Yeah, I know, trickin' down. Now all you folks get your thimbles out and try to catch a trickle. One trickle per poor person please. Dammit, who do they think they are trying to get more than a drop? Friends of Cheney?

Thune + Brain = Pressler + Makeover

from MIB:
That is something that surely cannot be stated as a fact. But even if we give you some leeway with it, cutting taxes doesn't help the economy as much as a BALANCED BUDGET.

For most Americans the "trickle down" effect just leaves them "trickled on".

Uh, Earth to Hot Atlanta: Cutting taxes balances the budget, provided Members of Congress can avoid going nuts with the spending.

Yeah, right, just look at the balanced budget we have now. Oh, and dont forget the "six million jobs" that were created.

Chimpy McTaxCut started out with a budget surplus and turned that into the countrys worst deficit.
Nice theory though Judge.

Sorry, Razor, but it IS fact. BTW, if you would have happened to read my entire statement, you would have seen where I said Congress can't offset tax cuts with bloated spending.

Also, 4 million jobs have been created in the last few years, which isn't 6 million obviously, but it's nice. Tax cuts DO help to balance the budget, as they lead to an increase in federal tax revenues, which, BTW, have been at record levels over the last year, particularly on the corporate side.

So tell me, when was the last time we had a balanced budget?

Nice try, but I'm not going to fall for that, Raze.

Wellll... to a point. Cutting taxes is good when an economy is highly taxed. Curently we are not. Americans currently pay the lowest per capita tax load in the industrialized world. Further, according to GAO, taxes as a percentage of personal income and corporate profit have never been lower in the last 75 years.

A Greenspan, as well as several other economists, has actually postulated on several occaisions that personal income taxes need to be raised slightly, and corporate tax loopholes, enhancements, and incentives need to be eliminated in order to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. During the late 90's, and with the recent housing boom, he argues, slightly higher taxes would have put gentle breaks on the markets and reduced the chances for long term instability and inflation.

This would in tern have left the FED with higher avg interest rates, and a greater ability to affect borrowing and in turn unemployment. Since Interest rates were ALREADY so low - historically so - the Fed was left with very limited influence.

Greenspan is also convinced that the current government spending spree, and its attendant budget deficits are disasterous to long term stability.

Actually one of Bob Woodward's books "Maestro : Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom" Greenspan tackles two of the Republicans most sacred cows -the Reagan defense spending spree(supposedly a brilliant strategy) that supposedly left the Soviet Union bankrupt trying to keep up. G states that this is sheer hindsight and revisionist history, that there is not a single mention of this kind of a 'policy' until the end of the Bush(SR.)administration. He has a lot of high power support on his side.

The other sacred cow is the 'trickle down' economics of the Reagan-Bush years. G states in interviews that this led directly to the recession of the early 1980's and the 89-92 recession through exploding deficits and subsequently higher interest rates.

So no, currently, cutting taxes would do little except impose further deficit on the federal government that is already underfunding, or not funding many of its own mandated programs.

MIB is correct in that a Rep. Congress has gone too far overboard on a spending spree that we can not afford; most of it on 'the war on terror/defense spending/homeland security" and sheer pork. Robbing many other long established programs and going deeper into debt to pay the freight.

R

SHIT - two days in a row we agree on something. Somebody call Alice, I think I have fallen through the looking glass.

[ August 24, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

You cannot compare our tax rate to other nations. We are overtaxed in many respects. Other nations' tax rates are horribly confiscatory, and many leading nations' economies are terrible compared to ours.

Thats the best you can do to avoid a legit
question? Come on judge, you can do better.

Good riddance to Thune, and every other tool of the Disaster-in-Chief W. Bring back Daschle. He's better for his state and for the country.

At least he was democratically elected (you know, like Chavez), which can't be said for Thune's 2002 opponent.

[ August 24, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Didn't we have a SURPLUS while Clinton was in office? Why yes we did! I wonder where it all went? Can Bush answer that question? I doubt it.

Don't be so quick to say good-bye to Thune, fantomas. The base closing commission today in an 8-1 vote decided to leave Ellsworth open, saying, among other things, that closing it would actually cost more money than leaving it open.

These bipartisan base closing commission decisions are sometimes fascinating. Every time they do these I find it quite interesting to view the process and reaction by everyone affected, including a president and Congress.

I love how they always put a few bases on there to appear to make it fair, knowing that there's no way some of them are going to be closed.

So they save a Repub's AF base in SD, will they do the same for the Dem gov of NM in the case of Cannon AFB?

Maybe, but I doubt it.

They will, believe me. Both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress will benefit from some changes resulting in bases left open.

Well, you were right, Thune's hide seems to have been saved for now.

Truthfully, it didn't seem to make sense to close that Air Force base, considering it was only one of two such like it in the nation. It's no wonder why oftentimes the commission scraps the Pentagon's plan to close certain venues. I think sometimes closing a specific venue often is worse than leaving it open.

It sounds like having this commission do the work that it does makes more sense than giving the Pentagon unilateral authority to close stuff on its own. With so much of a local economy's lifeblood dependent on a military base, I think it's good to have a lot of input. Granted there will always be politics involved in this by both Republicans and Democrats, but this process so far appears to be fairly decent.

Well, MIB, my doubts were apparently unfounded, Cannon survived as well. At least for now - the article I read said it would still be closed in the future, but just cut back for now.