Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Larry Kudlow :: Townhall.com Columnist
Facts over Democrat fantasy
by Larry Kudlow
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


As the November elections draw near, the triumph of fact over Democratic-propelled fantasy is becoming all the more evident. On topics as diverse as national security, the economy and the legislative success of the Republican-controlled Congress, nearly all Democrat talking points are being outed for what they really are: partisan nonsense that is disconnected from reality.

***

President Bush delivered another powerful speech Friday highlighting the weakness of Democrats on national security. He blasted away, saying: "Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."

These sentiments are right on the money, and the Democratic response is shameful.

According to one spokesperson from the Democratic National Committee, Bush's "failed policies have made America less safe and (have) spawned terrorism, not decreased it."

Huh?

And then there's Sen. Hillary Clinton, who recently stated: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report titled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States,' he would've taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

The Democrats must be held accountable for such statements.

Mrs. Clinton neglects to tell us that the subject of a Dec. 4, 1998, brief received by President Clinton was "Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks." This material comes courtesy of the 9-11 commission, which President Clinton himself cited during his now infamous interview with Chris Wallace.

Additionally, terrorist expert Richard Clarke, whom the former president also cited in the Wallace interview, made it clear in an August 2002 press conference that the Bush administration had stepped up the anti-bin-Laden effort during its first eight months in power. Clarke said Bush shifted the anti-terror effort from a rollback strategy to an elimination strategy. The Bush administration also increased the anti-al-Qaida budget fivefold. Translated, Bush was tougher on al-Qaida than his predecessor.

Yes, Bush made mistakes, just as Clinton made mistakes. But for Bill Clinton to tell Chris Wallace anything different is the height of hypocrisy.

I'll also note that it's a pleasure to source Richard Clarke and the 9-11 commission -- Clinton's sources during the Wallace interview -- in the cause of separating fact from fantasy. That beats the ex-president's finger-wagging any day.

***

A great editorial in the Chicago Tribune titled "Goldilocks and the Dow" makes the point that the Dow Jones stock average, which is near an all-time high, is reflecting solid growth with mild inflation. The editors write, "We are enjoying a goldilocks economy, not too hot and not too cold." In other words, there's no economic bubble out there that's about to go "pop."

Recent economic reports confirm this: Factory production is strong. Core inflation has settled down. Excluding energy, consumer prices haven't moved all that much in the last three years. In the third quarter, real consumer spending is running 3.2 percent at an annual rate, ahead of the second quarter average. Non-defense capital-goods shipments (excluding aircraft) are 7.6 percent ahead of the second quarter. After-tax real disposable income is 5.4 percent higher than last year. And tax revenues are rolling in, with both states and the U.S. Treasury reporting record revenue collections.

Rising stocks, falling gas prices, low tax rates and the Goldilocks economy are powerful pluses for election-year Republicans. With so many indicators leaning positive, the Democrats aren't even talking about the economy anymore.

***

The media continue to buzz about a do-nothing Republican Congress. But I'd say this Congress held the pro-growth line in its most recent session.

First, the investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains were extended to 2010. This underpins the Goldilocks economy with the strongest capital-formation incentives since Calvin Coolidge.

Second, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson apparently talked Sens. "Smoot" Schumer and "Hawley" Graham out of their China-bashing 27.5 percent tariff. This could've been the worst anti-growth legislation since the Smoot-Hawley tariff passed in 1930.

Third, no anti-immigration legislation was passed. Over the past 20 years -- the high tide of Mexican immigration -- the American economy has prospered and flourished. Today, any fence-only (new-Berlin Wall) approach to immigration control would be an economic negative.

Fourth, the Republican Congress passed a detention bill that will allow us to interrogate terrorist prisoners and gain information that will protect our citizens.

I'd give this Congress good marks, even though it failed to pass a strong budget-earmark-reform bill. That said, low taxes, free trade and the free movement of labor and capital will all bolster the Goldilocks economy -- aka, the greatest story never told.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company

Be the first to read Lawrence Kudlow's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

On the "do nothing" Congress---
I'm probably oversimplifying, but of 4 Congressional bill topics Mr. Kudlow mentioned--2 (50%) were things that they DID NOT do, which caused no harm to a very healthy economy and "good marks" from Mr. Kudlow.

It sounds to me as if the most productive thing a lot of the legislators could do is continue to debate, take even a shorter work week, and have a COMMENSURATE PAY CUT. Also, get out of our President's way, if they are (many of them, even Republicans, sadly) going to obstruct his measures to protect this country from further attacks by terrorists.

Kimberly, Kimberly
Ok, let's see how intellectually honest you really are...tell me what Clinton did (not after some report by Clarke) but after the first WTC BOMBING...the ATTACK on the US Cole...the ATTACK on our Embassy...

Then tell me what Bush did after the ATTACK on 9/11...

You're right! There was a whole lot of nothing from one and the other fought to give Afghanistan and Iraq their own bill of rights and millions of women were freed from their burkas. Where's your compassion for the people from these countries--or are their skins too brown for you to empathize with?

"Horrible?" I'd call it sickening and oh yeah, unpatriotic, to care more about a self glorified paper shuffler and crazies whose idea of honor is killing rape victims...than the leader of our country who is trying to walk the fine line between people who hate him, people who are disappointed with him, and the military who view the president as THEIR Commander in Chief.

hosekuervo

Hosekuervo... you know what they say about statistics. Your post is disingenous.

Here are some other facts to chew on:

During Clinton's first two years in office, the DJIA rose only 399 points (3435-3834). The DJIA didn't start its dramatic rise until AFTER Congress became a Republican majority in 1995. And it is generally acknowledged this massive rise was due to the Dotcom bubble which finally burst in 2000-2001.

Added to the Dotcom fiasco, Bush inherited a mild recession, then the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror, none of which occurred during Clinton's first 5-1/2 years. An honest man would say a comparison of the two time periods is comparing apples to oranges.

Nice try, though!

Kimberly, Kimberly...part deaux
I'm sure you would feel much more secure in Spain, France, or Germany where the radicals are trying to take over...with the help of their appeasers. Perhaps a ticket to move would help you make the move?

You're not only an ignorant twit, you're a stupid one as well. [Ignorant is simply uneducated, stupid is after you have been educated and still make the same decision.]

Sanity 102

You'll be waiting a long, long time for Kimberly to respond to your excellent comments.

You proposed the caveat of "intellectual honesty", and as we all know, trying to put "intellectual honesty" and "Liberal" in the same sentence is an oxymoron and would upset the delicate balance of the Universe!

Kimberly

Do some reserch for me.

During Clinton's administration, if the CIA discovered a plot to committ a crime, an attack inside the US, could they tell the FBI about it.

I'll save you some time, the answer was No. A Clinton appointee (CIA) , confirmed this about 2 days ago wwhile being inteviewed over the Clinton-Wallace interview.

KIMBERELY
Your right only about one issue, yes 9/11 did in fact happen on GB"S watch, and yes it was after only eight months of his presidency. But da.. it was the results of the previous eight years of the Clinton policies, or i should say lack of policies that left this country wide open and vulnerable to the attack of 9/11. Your beliefs are exactly why your party receives such terrible grades when it comes to protecting the national security of the United States of America. I am starting to believe that your party has a mandatory brainwashing school that must first be attended before you are let loose out in public.
visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads need To Roll

THREE CHEERS FOR THE ECONOMY...BRAVO!!!
Here's a good article in today's WSJ regarding the health and condition of the economy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115957267970578721.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

It takes about 6-9 months for commodity prices to work their way into the core CPI data. By the first and second quarters of 2007, the recent 20-25% plunge in commodity prices (and still heading south) by then will soften core inflation from current levels just as we are likely to be rebounding to 3.5% annualized GDP growth, up nicely from the current mid-cycle, soft spot. This opens the door for a Fed easing and lower interest rates. Combined with both solid GDP growth and the resulting solid coporate profits, look for DJIA 15000 by the end of 2007 with more to follow in 2008.

Not bad for an administration that was handed off a recession and a burst market bubble (not to mention a lethal dose of terrorism) with negative GDP quarters appearing in Q3/2000, Q1/2001 and Q3/2001, all occuring during Clinton's final two fiscal years ending September 30, 2001. In case you forgot, Al and Bill were peddling "the best economy in 150 years" throught 2000.




This is how it really worked!
To Kimberly: [This is how it really reads]

Great response by the Clinton Administration; it just so happens that the alerts discussed related to "hijacking concern[s) and the antiaircraft missile threat" were never found to have been implemented. Clinton seems to have been good at discussing, but actions were never a strong suit for him or his security advisors.

This inaction is further supported by his administration's inability to connect the dots when FBI reports were made about Arab students taking flight training and in one case, of a student wanting only to be taught how to fly, and not land, a plane!

Great PR but, as has been asked, 'what did Clinton do?'

As for what did Bush do! Cite Richard Clarke's statements in 2002 about a fivefold budget increase in fighting bin Laden.

If you find anything contrary to what I have said, I trust you will post them herein!

Take care!

And I hope you do see the difference!

HOSE SELLS APPLES TO ORANGES
Clinton was handed an economy that had already recovered from a recession and was already expanding and growing for a few quarters. Bush was handed a recession, a declining/shrinking economy with Q3/2000 and Q1/2001 already in the tank with negative GDP. That's a huge difference.

Bill's "stock bubble," and to a certain extent his "best economy in 150 years" and budget surplus, were based on companies that (1) were hyped to 250 times projected 2025 revenues, (2) that never earned a dime, (3) that hired hundreds of thousands of folks (today's still unemployed programmers) (4) and that went BK just 2-3 years after their IPOs. Nobody even remembers the names of these financial turkeys. They were hardly a foundation for a solid economy but they sure contributed to the illusion of wealth and prosperity.

And one final point. Right after Newt jammed 7 of the "Contract's" 10 principals right down Clinton's reluctant throat, the bond market immediately rallied (that means likely prospects for low inflation, low interest rates and generous stock valuations), setting the stage for a powerful stock rally that began some 2 years later.

How quickly some folks forget!




Kimberly
In the words of the sage, Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Left and Right
can jawbone, quote studies and "official" documents and holler about who cared less or did more. What i have observed is a sad lack of response to terrorist attacks during Clinton years. The response under Bush approaches errant stupidity but he at least seems to be trying. My view apparently is the voter view. Bush is doing poorly, but there is no area in which DEMs would do better. Putting on a wolf skin doesn't change a sheep into a wolf. November will be interesting.

Poor Kimberly
I feel simpathy for the Democrats and Liberals who try so very hard to justify thier leaders' ineptness. I too used to be a Democrat, but during the debates of Bill Clinton, George H.W.Bush, and Ross Perot I could see right through the slick talking, pie-in-the-sky, used car salesman of Mr. Clinton. I foolishly wasted my vote on Mr. Perot instead of Mr. Bush to be re-elected. And lookie-lookie, Clinton was an embarrasment to the Office of the Presidency. I'm glad I decided during those years to become a Republican. No longer do I suffer from the paranoia and ignorance of the party of Democrat hypocrits. Now I pray for the hateful Liberals to open thier eyes and hearts. Including you, Kimberly

A ridiculous statement
"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report titled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States,' he would've taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team." -- Hillary Clinton

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard a politician make. THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LEADER, and Bill Clinton is not a leader; he's a follower -- of opinion polls. He never made a move before conducting a poll, even on whether or not he should get a dog, and if so, what kind of dog. So, naturally, he wouldn't think to ask for an intelligence report without first conducting a poll on whether or not the public felt threatened. As Kellyanne Conway, owner of The Polling Company, says, "There are some questions that the public is just not qualified to answer and should therefore not be asked."

Democrat plan for Nov.
I read the new Democrat plan for when they win the election in November. They took a poll...........

Take it a step further
As I've written in my blog, the real root cause of the terrs (bin Laden, et al) taking such bold steps against us over the years -- from the Cole to the first WTC attack to the Kobar Towers, etc. -- was that other idiotic Southern president, the Peanut Farmer.

His caving in to Khomeini during the Iran Hostage situation was an eye-opener for all the jihadis, a clarion call that America is a paper tiger, and set up everything that happened afterward. Drop-Trou's presidency was merely a confirmation of our internal weakness, our unwillingness to fight back in any real way, and they took full advantage of it.

Now, under Bush, we have taken the fight to them. As it should be.

GOLDILOCKS & THE DOW JONES
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0609290248sep29,0,4868107,print.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
---
The Chicago Trib got it right, this is no phony, hyped, hellium bubble like 6-8 years ago--its "THE REAL DEAL." It has legs and staying power.



Kudlow's view
Kudlow's income is based in the market. The market has done well in the last few years. The market did well under Clinton too. The recession was mild and the markets weathered 9/11 well. The problem with this market based view is it ignores the cost of these gains to the US and the non-rich (less than 20 million? in net worth)

Easy money Greenspan permitted business to profitably borrow money to fund operations. In the past, borrowing was done primarily to fund capital improvements that were profitable in the mid to long term and good for everyone. Capital improvements are a good thing and the tax structure rewards these by cushioning the blow of the investment to the bottom line. Under Greenspan the markets rewarded the use of credit for consumables. This has little effect on the workers income because the company is not rewarding them for hard work or making the company better. The executives get rewarded because they improved the bottom-line without doing anything but borrow money. The apparent profit drives up the stock price which permits the companies to use their equity to buy up other companies, not reward the workers.

The consumer has done the same thing. Cheap credit has permitted the consumer to easily borrow against their home equity and spend it on what ever they want. This is good for the markets because consumers drive the economy. The US savings rate is now negative yet consumer spending continues to rise. As a result, we have no savings, high debt to income rations and extreme vulnerability to a rainy day economy.

We are extremely vulnerable to China. Under Clinton we did not need to borrow much from foreign investors because we did not need to. We did not rely on China to fund the government. Democrats tend to be tax and spend party but Republicans have become the borrow and spend party.

Since Bush took power, we have borrowed a trillion dollars from the Chinese. The Chinese don't like us much but do like our money which flows freely from the consumers buying Chinese goods. (note that we borrowed to buy those goods.) The Chinese now hold the cards on our economy. If they were to dump our paper on the open market we would have to raise interest rates to get anyone to take the debt. The Chinese just bought control of the US economy to be used at a later date. They can us into the ground when they don't need us anymore.

Paulson is a consummate deal maker. That is all he has done. He got 300 million for his excellent deal making. He is so good that he frequently represented both parties in the deal. He is using that skill to forestall any measures to control the Chinese both because it would aggravate them, and, all this cheap labor and goods from China is great for the multinationals bottom line and thus the market.

Note that China buys oil from Iran and Chavez with money they make on our treasuries and manufacture of goods we buy. This means that the tax payers and consumers are supporting Iran's rise to power. Kinda ironic.

So the average American has made little to no gain. The only workers families that saw significant increases in income were the folks on wall street. Take that away and the average family income in the US declined against inflation.

We are now beholding to the Chinese. Wal-Mart, if a country, would be the number 8 trading partner with China. The consumer in the US loves this cheap stuff and is willing to risk their future economic well being to buy it. The profits go off-shore and even to the terrorists.

The markets do not care much how much the tax payers spend on the immigrants as long as they keep borrowing and spending. It is essentially a corporate subsidy and increases profits because they do not have to pay health care, workers comp, etc. on illegal aliens. Good for profits, good for the market, bad for the US.

Good for Kudlow and the markets, bad for most Americans.





Dear Kimberly...
I'm curious.

Which of the following would have done anything to stop the attacks on 9/11?

1) To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend.

2) They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports.

3) The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines.

4) The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

Answer:

5) None of the above.

Don't forget, even with intensified screening 9/11 hadn't happened yet and the things that are looked for today weren't looked for at that time.

And even after 9/11 Richard Reed (the Shoe Bomber) still managed to get on a plane...

The point?

an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

In Clinton's first year in office OBL attacked the twin towers and he engaged in an ounce of cure.

In Bush's first year in office OBL attacked the twin towers and he has engaged in a pound of prevention.


Kudlow missed in part
You started out all right Kudlow until you got to the part about immigration at the end of the article. We don't need illegal Mexican immigration to flourish. Our economy is fine without the illegals. That's why they come. I also didn't like the Berlin wall analogy. It doesn't jive. The Berlin wall seperated a single country into two parts. A wall between Mexico and the US would be seperating two sovereign nations, who are neighbors, not seperating the US into two parts. It does not solve the problem however. It may help in enforcing of our borders. Enforcement of border laws and deporting illegals no matter where they come from China, Haiti,Cuba,Guatemala is paramount and not unreasonable or racist to do. No new laws need to be passed to do so is the ridiculus part. It is to Congresses detriment that they did not "pass" or as I say enforce our laws of immigration as the House tried to do. The House was on the right track only to be foiled by the Senate. I suspect the only reason for this failure to enforce is fear of losing illegal votes or backlash from hispanics voting. Do the business of the country and you will be ahead of the game. No new debate needs to take place to enforce laws, it's what this country was founded on, Rule of Law. It's clear and it's simple. We'll talk about changing immigration law after enforcement of current law.

NECon
You make the nice point that i wish the pols would figure out. Do the busines of the country, do what's good for THE COUNTRY. Forget this BS of trying to calculate what move for what special interest group will gain most net votes. Reagan never did it and look at his landslides. Why the H3ll can't the current Republican pols figure it out? The Reagan coalition is still out here, ignored again as we were for 25 years. Golly i miss the chance to vote FOR someone. As it is, back to throw the rascals out.

jaydee
A pound of prevention? No, A pound of waste and a bunch of new wounds.

Good intellegence stopped the liquid bomb attack and then we knee jerk and ban liquids but now, oh, they are ok now. Huh? We were told lipgloss was dangerous and now its not? What a waste.

We spent over 2 billion dollars on security for the capital building and have 50,000 police officers for the capital. A crack head drives up, walks in with more crack and a gun and gets to the same area the president spoke a week before. What a waste.

We scramble fighters because a women pees in the plane? What a waste.

We fight a war for 400 billion and thousands of soldiers lives and the result is we hand over Iraq to friends of Iran. What a waste.

We win a war in Afganistan only to turn the country over to opium growers while we spend more lives and money on fighting the guys we beat, what a waste.

We borrow money and buy goods from the Chinese who buy oil from Iran and support Hezbollah. What a waste.

Osama and the boys must love how we spend billions, probably trillions, and restrict freedoms in the US. What else has he had to do since 9/11? He does not need to do anything. The last message from the terrorists said they were going after other countries than the US. Why not the US? They have already accomplished their objectives.

Without a doubt,
almost to the letter, the things the Democrats attribute to the Republicans always has been the Democrat position(s).. Just take a look over the next few weeks if you have been missing this point for the last 15 years.

It is absolutely amazing! Howard Dean, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Richard Durban, Bill and Hillary, Carvelle, Begala, (especially)Chuck Schumer all claim actions/positions of the Democrats are being used by the Republicans! For instance "Republicans have no exit stragety."

The example that Dean and company claim the Republicans have no plan for Iraq is valid. Where is theirs? John Kerry says the Democrat plan is to train the Iraq Army to take over security and defense for their country. The US has been doing this for 3 years. Kerry says we need to do it faster! Yup! Republican policy is to prolong the war, increase the cost and run up the highest death rate possible. That is what the Democrats are really claiming.

Total nonsense and counter-intuitive to political survival.

There are two distinct political parties in American: the Evil and the Stupid. Our most vocal Leftist Bush Hater is Kimberly, no matter what the issue. I'm sure she would claim the Republicans fill the first slot. I would disagree. But where does that leave the Democrats?






Kimberly
Have you actually read the August 6th memo? Clearly you havent. otherwise you would know there is no workable information. for your benefit here it is. you'll see its entirely a historical document.

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladensince 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bringthe fighting to America." :

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladentold followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] serviceat the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative'saccess to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that BinLaden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate theoperation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he preparesoperations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members -- including same who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains asupport structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guiltyin the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We havenot been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance offederal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Free Movement of Labor???
There aren't too many jobs for me in Mexico, Larry. And it takes an hour for me to go down there and two to come back, plus by next year there will be a passport check.

Hello? Larry?

What?
""Here's what Bush did after the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB: Nothing.""

You must mean besides invading Afghanistan and Iraq. That would be a ton of "nothing". Clinton would have requested extradition and the media would have downplayed the attacks.

Modernone
Too true. All too sadly true. My problem is i'm trying to find a way to quit it. Any suggestions?

GOOD FOR CORPS BUT BAD FOR AMERICANS????
The economy is not a zero-sum game as MODERNONE believes, both corporations and the rest of America benefit from a growing pie. Sure we have had alltime record-high corporate profits, but we also have ALL TIME RECORD HIGH household net worth, corporate dividends, stock ownership, household incomes, household consumption, new jobs, home ownership, auto ownership, etc, etc. The economic pie grew, as it always does, and everyone benefited. And as this economic cycle matures and labour markets continue to tighten, wages and salaries will benefit even more. The only folks getting left behind are the uneducated and unskilled simply because capital is more readily mobile than people. Money goes where it is treated best. MODERONE needs to take a look out the window.

And we are NOT at China's financial mercy. The dollar is a closed system and China has 3, and only 3, choices for the dollars they get from trade with America. China can (1) buy our goods and services, and (2) they can buy our financial paper. They can also (3) sell our dollars to the next player who has the very same 3, and only 3, choices. Nobody will chose to (4) burn their trade generated dollars. Right now, China is focused on buying our financial paper with the dollars generated by trade with America.

And the way the last few Treasury auctions went, the world simply can't get enough of our financial paper. I like the 4.6% yield on our 10-year T note--it keeps the cost of capital down, facilitates corporate growth and expansion, helps to generat jobs and incomes which then stimulates consumption--and on and on and on. What's not to like about that?




Reality Check
Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months. Who should have done more?

If the company you work for is doing very well financially, isn't it easier to ask for a pay raise or get a promotion? What if that company was constantly flirting with bankruptcy? What's good for business is good for America.

Kimberly, Kimberly...part 3
So...what you're saying is that come November (and 2008)...we can either put people in office that will discuss endlessly what to do about terrorism or we can get people who will actually DO something....

Mmmm...is this like a hard decision?

I'll wait while you go "discuss" this with someone...

ro-d1, part 1, section 2
IF Bush/Chaney was so secretive...how do you know that there weren't JUST as many meetings, just as many committees held as in Clinton's time...only Clarke and his cohorts weren't invited?

And I guess what happened before may be important to those who like to play the blame game...but for most of us...we don't care as much on how we got there as to what was done once the situation happened.

Fact is:

Clinton's Team: Lots of planning...amount of execution? (Please enter number of executed plays prior to each attack).

Bush's Team: Have no idea how much planning...but if on 9/12, you were told that:

1- TWO of the worst terrorists supporting nations would get their own Bill of Rights

2- There'd be TEN MILLION purple fingers waving to the Cameras as they braved death to do what we in America take for granted.

3- End Gender Apartheid in those 2 nations

4- That our nation would enjoy one of the best economies in a quarter of a century.

5- That the military, police, firemen would no longer be seen as heroes.

6- That we'd call 2,000 plus deaths in 3 YEARS a failure.

7- That somehow, the president and his administration would keep a defense so spot on that there'd be NO attacks on America soil for five years...

You would have told the person who made such outlandish predictions that he/she was living in a fantasy land.

Well it's 2006...and the only one living in fantasy land is Liberals...it is they who find all the above impossible, thus for them, it did not happen.

They do not comprehend the great difference between beliefs that taps into mankind's strongest ability--to hope and dream and work for an impossible necessity and beliefs that give lip service to impossibilities that exist only in a mind's eutopia of perfect humanity.






Does donaldd really think...
that anyone believes millions of American workers are standing in bread lines? Clearly an exaggerating moron or a liar. He continues the disinformation when addressing engineering jobs and Wal-Mart. Perhaps I should have just used a question mark in the subject rather than the ellipsis.

Donaldd writes:

"... Giving Millions of lower to middle income families more money increases purchasing power, increase in demand, stimuates sales, increase in production, capital expansion, requires more workers, and an Ever growing economy."

Gee Donaldd.... sounds like an excellent reason for lower taxes.

Hmmmm... now which Party supports making permanent lower tax rates for ALL taxpayers?

Thanks for making the point!

Donald
Comparing a CEO to a janitor! How droll! And how SOCIALISTICALLY EGALITARIAN!

Yes, Donald, you've convinced me. CEO's should be paid $6.25/hour.

Look, a corporation gets revenue from sale of goods and/or services. Some revenue goes to salaries (compensation packages) for the employees, including janitors and CEO's. Some revenue goes to operating expenses. Some goes for plant expansion and new equipment. And so on.

A corporation's revenue does NOT all go directly to a CEO who doles it out as he sees fit. Not in the big corporations. There are boards of directors who oversee the policies, fiscal and otherwise.

If the business makes a bad decision, then it suffers fiscally. So do the workers. Is it reasonable to blame a corporate officer (unless he is shirking his fiduciary responsibility)? That's what management does: MAKE DECISIONS.

The janitor should've stayed in school, learned something, worked harder. Then he could get the big bucks. Would you like a millionaire janitor less?

Business's want good people. They can only get, for the most part, adequate people. That's life. No one is going to be fired for doing a good job, or even an adequate job.

The bottom line is that jnaitors will never be paid $150,000/year with golden parachutes. If they want that kind of money, they have to start early, get the schooling and work very hard.

Either that, or move to a socialist utopia where everybody is paid the same amount of money (except for the elites who run the country). Donald, you do not want that!

Do nothing Congress because of
Democrats wasting time filibustering everything that comes down the pike, good for the country or not. That's all the dems have done the entire 109th Congress. I just saw Nancy Blowharder on FOX News the most watched news channel saying the Dems are proposing the most transparent honest Congress ever. How can she believe that when their main spokeman is Billy lie under oath Clinton and Chappaquid Ted and Hillary whitewater Clinton. When we have a dud like foley we air it out not elect them prez.

hank
Any of the numbers behind your assertions of growth are less positive if you look at the distribution of the increases. Why do you think there is so much concern over the economy while the markets soar. This is the stuff of revolutions.

We have a reasonable point of stabiilty with China. The imbalance of trade is growing and the balance with China is only sustained with our spending beyond your means and China's willingness to continue proping up the dollar by buying the paper.

If China lost interest in the dollar and started dumping treasuries we would have to raise interest rates to sustain our borrowing. There goes all that easy money and the economy with it.

Why would China loose interest in the dollar? What if Iran and Venezuela decided to value oil in Euros or Yen? Oops.

What if the housing based easy money dries up and we can not keep buying chinese stuff. Oops.

What if interest rates were to rise due to inflation control by the Fed. People could not borrow and that would slow spending. Oops.

Taxes fuel the economy?
I guess Donaldd thinks/believes that the Bush tax cuts only went to millionaires, stock holders and folks still in short term employment (when they aren't waiting for their bread).

In fact everyone who paid federal taxes got a refund. Capitol gains dropped and the business community soared, yesterday stocks came within dollars of their all time high. And those unfortunate stock holders, 65% of the US population, are getting the shaft?

76% of Americans live in their own homes. It is hard to find workers with skills because the unemployment rate has been at an historic low for years.

To do well in this country you only have to develope skills and a solid work habit, don't do drugs and stay married if you are now. The stats prove this. If you are complaining about the rich folks getting it all, then become one yourself! You wern't born into a socialist or communist state so quit trying to make us into one. Pull your own load and teach someone else how to do it too.

If you will actually take the time,go to Larry Elder's web site and take the Bush Lied Test. Elder sometimes has a column on TownHall so he should be easy to find. If you still hate Bush after taking the test then it is simply pathalogical and you should turn yourself in to a clinic somewhere to treat your depression.

Bush has made mistakes like spending and his idiotic immigration plans but you are lying to yourself if you believe he hurt the economy or "lied" us into war.






It seems to me
That the problem here is two mutually exclusive philosophies.
On the one side, people who maintain that (A) free enterprise and (B) actual combat engeagement of an actively-hostile enemy work.
On the other side, those who believe that (C) state-run economies and (D) pre-emptive negotiation with actively-hostile enemies are the only practical alternative.
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the historical record does not support the philosophy of those who favor (C) and (D). And no matter what you may have heard, history always wins. (And not just because the winners write it, either.)

Kimberley, et all
Wow, I just read the various comments.

It seems to me that many here are taking a stance that "my side" is not to blame.

Well guess what, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have a lot of blame for 911.

Clinton was just luckly that the 93 WTC bombers put their rental truck in the wrong spot or else 10,000 plus people may have been killed when the one tower fell into the other.

Clinton had his chance at that point in time to lead the nation and the world in a fight against terrorism but he choose not to. Even CNN got it but Clinton did not. I distinctly remember the graphic on CNN that day saying "Terrorism comes to America". Yet it seemed that nothing changed in respect to our governments attitude about terrorism.

Osma himself has stated that our retreat from Somolia emboldened them to attack us directly here in the US along with the lack of any major responses to the other attacks that happened on Clinton's watch.

BTW this is a "duh". If a bully attacks you and you do nothing will the bully go away or come at you again with renewed vigor? Duh!!

Plain ol common sense tells us what we should have been doing during the 90's but Clinton and the lefties just did not get it nor do they get it now. They are blinded by their "idiotology" (no that was not a typo) and seem to be unable to look at the realities of life and to re-evualate their thought processes.

The 911 terrorists were already in the US and the plan well under way before Bush became president. The tools they used to take over the planes would not have been taken away from them even if the airports got a hightened alert.

Oh, and by the way, Mass. Senator Kerry had gotten multiple reports from ex officals and local news channels about the lack of security at Boston Logan airport and he did nothing.

Neither of which absolves the Bush administartion from not raising the alert level at airports.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

The first task of our government is to protect the American people. They failed in that task clear and simple.

Now the question is can we learn from the mistakes of the past and implement proper policies that will better protect us in the future.

To do this we must be willing to acknowledge that it is obvious that mistakes were made and to look for and understand the underlining incorrect principles that lead to those mistakes.

I do not see the willingness to do this on the part of the lefties like Kimberely, etc.

They are still evidently stuck in the mind set that America is to blame for terrorism and thus we should handle it like a police matter instead of understanding that the terrorists hate the very core of our existence. Even from Clinton's remarks (both ex-president and senator Clinton) one gets the impression that they beleive that if only they had been in charge, if only their policies of the 90's had been followed, that 911 would not have happened.

What stupidity!! All they have to do is to read what Osama writes to understand that it was the policies of the Clinton administration that encouraged/enabled the attacks on 911 and then to read the 911 report, etc., to understand that it was government policy (to be fair some of which was in place before the 90's like the leftist prohibition on the CIA and FBI talking, on the CIA not being able to use spies unless they were saints, etc.) that significantly aided the terrorists in the US to succeed.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

The terrorists goal is our total "submission" to them. To impose upon us their religious law that would control all aspects of our lives to an extent that would make the Soviet Union look like a hippy commune.

Understand why Islam means both peace and submission. Yes, "peace" as they define it meaning submitt to our rule and you will live in "peace" with us. Not the "peace" as we would define it as "live and let live", pursue your dreams, be all you can be, etc., tempered by respect for the rights of others.

Our country is founded upon the principle of having rights given to us by our creator which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that our government should not establish a state religion. This is also coupled with the christain belief that one of the greatest gifts God gave us is the gift of free will. In short that religious faith cannot be corcered.

Their guiding principles and ours are polar opposites which is the real reason why they hate us so much and consider us to be the Great Satan.

There can be no reasoning with such a polar opposite, no compromise is possible without giving up our freedoms.

This is an enemy that loves death more than we seem to love life. They are an enemy that will take any sign of weakness on our part as a victory and encouragement.

Even the Nazis and Commies were not so terrible of an enemy for they shared with us one common goal and that being a strong desire to live and a concern for their people. Thus they and us shared certain rules of combat and they could be deterred.

Until we as a nation understand this we will not be able to properly counter this enemy.

Ron B

keep whining kimberly
The top 50 percent pays 96+ PERCENT of the income tax bracket. They DESERVE the tax break, otherwise its WELFARE. We are still trying to pay off that collosal idiocy from LBJ. Mindless myrmidons like yourself get your talking points from 'rich people' like Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. Yeah I am sure they really care what the tax brackets are.

If you don't like rich people go get a job from a poor person.

I don't know how to have a conversation with a parrot, but I hope some of this got through to you.


Rude One
You missed the point that Bush had 1/12th the time Clinton had to respond to terrorist attacks - wait - actually, he had zero time. You see, Clinton did nothing in response to terror, something in response to impeachment, perhaps, but nothing in response to terror.

First terrorist attack on the USA and Bush invades Afghanistan within weeks. Clinton doesn't come close.

David's right
the Board sets executive pay by contract.

NRALifer
It ticks me off too, man.

Were you a gunny, btw? I never served, but I think that's awesome man. Thanks.

SORRY TO HEAR AMERICA ISN'T WORKING FOR
ro AND modern...AMERICA IS WORKING OVERTIME FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

Educcation and valuable skills are the answers; perhaphs you folks need a "life style" adjustment?

Falling behind those whose shirts haven't even dried after their swim into America must be very discouraging--whose fault is that and what's your excuse?




Who would bin Laden vote for?
Some crtics would say OBL would vote for Bush, et al given he has not be caught during this administration. I suspect he would vote for the party that opposes effective interigation, the war in Iraq and whom are critical of both efforts which are intended to protect America.
I'm just saying...
Mb

Poor Kimberly
Having read your scree I found no proposal for how to fix the problems you list. This rise in the presidents poll ratings suggest Americans are now paying attention - as the election nears - to what is said by both parties.
Folks have figured out the whining and complaining are no substitute for thoughtful planning and responsibility for outcomes. For the far lefttists this administration must be 100% perfect to avoid the "disproportionate" complaining.
Before you convince me to join the Dem revolution you will have to show me some kind of acceptable plan or policy that would assure a greater possibility of success in the areas of terrorism, economy, society and the environment.
Whining just is not good sound policy.

And the Winner of the Blame Goes To...
Ron B., I admire you for your honest words. As a conservative I'm willing to say that the present administration, et al failed to treat this iminent threat, 9/ll, with the seriousness it deserved.

To defend Bill Clinton, his co-president, and his administration for their great efforts (?) in protecting us from terrorism...well, that's just silly wishful thinking.

Along with your fair comments about both these presidents, you squarely stated what we're up against. If we don't beat back these Muslim terrorists NOW, our legacy to our future generations will be "no more freedom for you, loved ones. Sorry."

Torture and Kimberly
Kimberly:
The only torture that is occurring is that which is occurring in your mind. Like most liberals, you accuse based on emotion and not on fact and then that accusation becomes your reality. Please spare us your faux indignation. There is no hard factual information that anything that could be deemed as real torture has taken place. But, even if there were, why should it matter? These low-lifes that have been captured are non-uniformed terroists who belong to no traditional Geneva-Convention obeying country. They cut off heads, intentionally kill children, and consider women (of which class I assume you are one) chattel good for three things only. If the CIA or any Special Forces types cause discomfort to of few of these towel-headed dip-shits, and get info that prevents more of their mayhem on us, then whoop-de-do, and three cheers for our side. Unlike you, and the traitorous leaders of the Demoocrat party, I am cheering for us to win and not for the towel-heads to win. And, by the way, if and when these animals do "win", sycophants like you (what Lenin called "useful idiots") will be the first ones that they immediately behead...no water-boarding...no listening to your pleas that you tried to defend them from being tortured... no consideration given to your caring attitude. Get real, Kimberly, this ain't a game. This is a life and death struggle against scum who couldn't care less about your concern over their well-being. God, why can't people like you wake up and smell the impending death around you?

Rich:

About your post to Poor Kimberly.... Amen!

The 9-11 Report, Opinions and Woodward;
People who quote the 9-11 report as if it were a Bible of all things that happened, didn't happen or as exhaustive of everything related to the 9-11 attack would be better served if they cited the criterion related to each conclusion. The wrangling that goes on when a commission makes a finding is just that!

Woodward's new tome on gleanings and his opinions on the harvested detritus are just that! He, too, would serve his readers with a more clear backdrop if he used less opinion and more salient detail that 'forces' his opinion, one way or another! To quote him as if he were omnipotent on personality and body language is the highest form of bias.


ro_d1 & Donaldducky
Now ro_d1...about your definition of "facts"...are you one of those who believe that mankine never landed on the moon and that Elvis is still alive? Because I could have sworn that a Bush administration did indeed give 2 nations their bill of rights etc.

Now you can dispute any of those facts...you can also say that JFK was dying of STD anyway and to preserve the dignity of the oval office (obviously before Clinton) the government shot JFK and made him a martyr...but that would make you a nutter and very few people will take whatever you say seriously.

Ok Donald, if Bush is "secretive" how do we know exactly what he has or has not done? And do you have any concept of what treason means? It means "betray" as in the guy who leaked the story to the press and "acting to overthrow one's government as in Liberals who demand to know ALL the government secrets and make it public.

Geez Ducky, before you preach the good book, can you try reading it? What caused the fall of mankine...eating the "fruit of knowledge". How did the authorities find Christ?...one of his own BETRAYED him.

And no, in the event that you still don't get it, gaining knowledge wasn't wrong...taking it when God clearly said no was.

And wanting government secrets when it could hurt our military just to take down Bush IS unpatriotic and oh yeah treasoneous.

Treason?
Donaldd writes:
"Under Bush's secrecy which has been brought to light we get illegal kidnapping, detentions of prisoners, torture of prisoners, Illegal wire tapping, transporting secret prisoners from their countries without extradition hearsing"

It blows my mind that a sitting President who is taking actions he deems necessary to protect this country can be accused of treason by the same people that accuse him of doing nothing. If you're going to say he does nothing, then by definition you can't accuse him of doing too much, let alone prosecute him for treason.

I would contend that the real acts of treason are being committed by insiders who leak classified information. And if the leakers are Republicans trying to further their own agenda, then I will be the first to admit that they should face the same firing squad that should be knocking down the front door of the NY Times. Classified information is classified for a reason. The public (which includes terrorists) does NOT have the "right to know" classified information.

The NSA wiretaps were found to be legal, and arguably helpful in combatting terror plans. The terrorists being held are neither American citizens nor soldiers of a sovereign nation. Therefore they do not expressly have a right to due process nor are they protected by the Dems' new best bud, the Geneva Convention. Keeping prisoners in a room that's a little too warm, or a little too cold, or making them listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers to get some information out of them is not torture.

I'd love to see you put a sitting president on trial for treason with the evidence you presented in your post.

hank
Late post I know. I am extremely comfortable thank you. I have done will being in tech and realestate. One must go ahead and profit from whatever stupidity arises but that does not mean I like what is happening to a once great country.

Your resort to personal attacks is so typical but I am worried about the country. I know the hard core right only cares about themselves individually and your personal situation is all that matters. After all it was Cheney who profited by his deals that almost sank Halliburton. Buying a company mired in asbestos litigation was as stupid as investing the US is Iraq. Of course he is doing well so what does he care.


A Democrat President!
Do I plan to vote for a democratic president in 2008; hum... let me see. Thanks to Franklin Roosevelt we had the horrible attack on Pearl Harbor. Thanks to that wonderful John F. Kennedy we have Castro controlled Cuba! Thanks to, look at my white teeth Jimmy Carter, we have a peaceful and great ally in Iran! Yeah.

Thanks to Lendon Johnson we have Vietnam. (yes, he started that war folks) Thanks to cigar man Bill Clinton we have Bin Laden able to hide in mountains, train terrorists and plan attacks on the United States. Well, I have though it over and I don't think the United States can afford another democratic president. I will be voting for the republican candidate. I would like for our country to continue to exist!

Kimberly's rubber stamp
Tell me Kimberly, when the Democrats vote as a bloc against anything the administration proposes, is that also a "rubber stamp" action?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.