Capt.Slog

Indeed - selecting a Bush holdover for SecDef was clearly an error of judgment.

Maybe you missed this bit: "The Sun has reported"

Looks like Gates made the choice: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he had requested Lynn be appointed as his deputy and that an exception to the lobbying rules be made. Gates said, he understands Congress needs more information before it will feel comfortable with the appointment." "At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said he asked for an exception to ethics rules to hire Lynn, a former Pentagon comptroller. "I felt that he could. play the role of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw," said Gates, who served as Pentagon chief under George W. Bush and is staying on under Obama. "I was very impressed with his credentials. He came with the highest recommendations of a number of people that I respect a lot."

Fascinating. Thanks, Jan.

Tax cuts have always been followed by growth, and an increase of actual tax-income to the government. The problem is Congressional spending. Tax cuts are administratively cheaper, and can have an immediate affect. These "shovel ready" crap programs don't do that, and do not get government out of the way. That must be the reason the deficit ballooned after the Reagan tax cuts and the GW Bush tax cuts. Yes, that must be the reason. You would be correct. With the increase in "revenue", Congress out-paced revenue at incredible rates. It started in the 80s, enhanced by trade deficits because the dollar was very strong. President Clinton was able to balance the budget by cutting the capital gains tax. Don't get me wrong, the Presidents all signed these budgets and spending bills over the years. The onus is on them as well. But it is Congress that holds the purse. Of course, that also changed the Congress passed that stupid, stupid, retarded TARP bill... Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in REAL revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%. The cumulative effect of the Bush tax cuts over his presidency on REAL revenues is negative. To compare, Clinton increased taxes on the upper-income taxpayers, which led to a 97% increase in government revenue. He grew the economy at a healthy pace. He decreased the debt/GDP ratio in each year starting in 1995 of his presidency. The so-called "Laffer Curve", beloved of Republicans, has absolutely no evidence to indicate what its actual shape is, or where we are on it with respect to maximizing revenues. Basically, it's a right wing myth.

I've already established in this thread, that the gun-o-phobes don't care about knife murders. It seems that they just don't matter... Only gun murders are important enough to do something about. Just look at Capt.Slog's message #16, above, for an example of that kind of thinking. Maybe we should care in proportion to the magnitude of the problem. According to the FBI, "For those incidents in which the murder weapon was known, 69.5 percent were committed with a firearm. Knives or cutting instruments were employed in 14.3 percent of murders"

Fixed it for you.... We already register people.

When 10,000 knife murders a year are happening, that would be a good time to worry about knives. Until then guns are a much bigger problem.

No. I don't accuse them of "manipulating" the margins. They provide margins for their work (interestingly, a couple of the margins for their work are greater than the measured change). I am saying they don't "address" the underlying margin for the satellite measurements. Even my GPS tells me I'm within 3 meters. Does your GPS, with its margin of error on absolute position, ever tell you your going in the opposite direction to the way you ARE going?

We lost already. Every time you go shoeless through the TSA at an airport is a reminder that we lost our values.

I am getting a bit nervous. The data didn't actually say what it was - it needed some mathematical manipulation. . Oh, the dreaded "mathematical manipulation". Does your altimeter actually measure height above the surface of the sea, or does it measure air pressure and do some "mathematical manipulation"? Does your GPS really know exactly where you are, or does it measure data from some satellites and do some "mathematical manipulation"? Does the speedometer in your car actually measure how many miles you covered in one hour, or does it measure the rotation rate of your wheels and do some "mathematical manipulation"? I could go on and on. Your comment has to one of the silliest I've seen on this forum.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843446.stm

I'm keeping a positive outlook myself. I hope he does good things. I just predict my takehome pay will decrease in the form of higher federal taxes and that is when I will get pissed. I cannot afford to pay more for a lot of people sit on there ass and enjoy the free ride. If you don't like people sitting on their asses, you should vote for the party that has a record of creating jobs. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3461546#3461546

Bush could do with one of [url "http://www.perishnot.com/files/u2/get_out_of_hell_free_Front_Small.gif"] these.[url]

From US Dept. of Labor: Average annual employment-growth rates for all 11 postwar presidents are listed below: Total employment • 1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.74% • 2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.11% • 3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.42% • 4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.38% • 5. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.30% • 6. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.28% • 7. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.04% • 8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.95% • 9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.87% • 10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.59% • 11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.28%

Driving home yesterday this guy pulls out from a side road without looking. Yes, he was yakking on his phone.

Until the multi - trillion dollar Bush debt is paid off, I should think.

Unfortunately we have the Plaxico Burrises to deal with too.

www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone bicycleuniverse.info/cars/cellphones.html

What did you do?

I understand enough to know that the science is not settled. I understand they should climate swings as big or bigger than what the alarmists say we are going through or are abour to go through have happened in the past, befor man could have anything to do with I know the alarmists have lied about polar bear populations and are wrong today about the amount of ice in the various places they have spoken to. I know the alarmists will say "well, I have traveled and seen this and that and it has to be" yet they will say what is happening today is an anomoly. I know that some researchers say the data the alarmists use show CO2 levels follow temp changes and not lead it. THIS is a core premise to thier whole argument and that is not yet settled I know the alarmists would change our way of life to live they way they think we should live . I know if the alarmists get thier way there would be a world type tax on carbon , which is not even a polutant If you have followed my position at all on this thread you would know that. Your position appears to be: It never happened. It happened but stopped in 1998 (or 2008). It's happening but it is part of a natural cycle. It's happening but it is good for us.

I don't think you understand the links you are posting.

I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them. I'm just going by the caption. I'm going by the photograph showing their feet on the ground Sheep flock with their feet on the ground. So do penguins, if you want to restrict it to birds.

584,000 newly unemployed in November, 524,000 in December. Worst year for unemployment since WWII.

Bzzzt. Mixing singular and plural forms.