Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > July > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USStudy’s merits in the eye of the beholder
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
An extraordinary thing happened last week — so extraordinary, it was front-page news.
Activists determined to torpedo the expansion of nuclear power produced a “study” purporting to link high cancer rates to Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Vogtle in Burke County near Augusta. The spin put on the “study” commissioned by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League was that Georgians would die of cancer if two new reactors proposed for Vogtle get built.
As AJC reporter Margaret Newkirk noted, however, it took Georgia Power “approximately a nanosecond” to refute the charge. Utility officials note that a six-year study of cancer rates within a 50-mile radius of Plant Vogtle and the Savannah River Site, financed by the U.S. Department of Energy, found that “most cancer rates in the area are about the same as in similar communities” and about what you’d expect in non-metro areas. It was conducted by researchers from the University of South Carolina and Emory University.
The “study” commissioned by nuclear power opponents took raw numbers and did not factor in other possible causes for a rise in cancer rates, says Georgia Power spokesman John Sell.
In this instance, the purported study targeted a single company, giving Georgia Power a survival interest in debunking the allegations leveled. Ordinarily, in the rush of the news, they’re taken as gospel, regardless of the sponsor’s agendas.
Studies involving race are particularly suspect. Lending practices and prison populations are frequently presented as evidence of discrimination. The problem, however, is that many of those who conduct the studies stop when they get the answer they’re looking for. And on issues like global warming or the environment, unless we know the preconceptions of those who analyze the data, it’s hard to know whether, as with race, they found evidence of what they already believed — or whether the evidence led them to one conclusion to the exclusion of other possibilities.
One currently popular topic of study is how and where we live. Sometimes the problem is how the study is conducted, but it can also be how a study’s conclusions are framed. One example is commuting distance, a fixation of traffic-choked places like Atlanta. In “Volunteering in America,” a study released Monday, long commutes are blamed for reducing volunteerism.
Without question living in one place and working in another lessens our awareness of local volunteer opportunities and, to some extent, reduces the time we have available for outside activities, including volunteering. But, as the study also noted, other “key social and demographic trends” affect volunteerism. The others are community attachment, high school graduation rates, poverty and the “prevalence of nonprofits and their capacity to retain volunteers from year to year.”
The study was commissioned by the Corporation for National & Community Service, which sponsors three major federal programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America. The study was based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I don’t take issue with the study, but with the fixation on commuting. Among its other findings is that high home ownership and high education levels lead to high volunteer rates, which are highest in communities associated with Middle America: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, among others.
The commute, however bad it may be in gridlocked metro Atlanta, is a popular villain. But it’s one of a number of factors determining whether people volunteer. The unfortunate reality of any metropolitan area is that it’s big and often incomprehensible, the sentiment that gives rise to incorporation of places like Sandy Springs and Johns Creek. In big cities, people either don’t know of local opportunities or they find their time used unproductively. And, too, the rise of paid volunteerism in programs like AmeriCorps cultivates an expectation of compensation.
Long commutes are bad. But they’re not the cause of all America’s ills.
Permalink | Comments (66) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By jbmlaw
July 10, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. The topic today is one I have contemplated on a personal level. Before we moved here to the promised land eight years ago, we lived in a college town in an adjacent state. While I ran my small town law practice, I coached little league baseball (not my own kids), administered the Babe Ruth league, umpired some outside my leagues, taught two youth Sunday school classes, was President of the local Optimist Club, and then Lt. Governor of the state Optimist Clubs, ran the regional oratory competition. Here I have done none of those. My one-way commute has generally increased from about 10 minutes to around 45 minutes. The time expectations of a corporate position also diminish my non-work activities I suppose. Yet, I think perhaps Jim correctly identifies the real cause of my own lack of volunteer activities: I do not have any particular sense of attachment to the small city where I live now, even though the new city is smaller than my old one. Or maybe I’m just getting old.
Special note to CJ @ 4:50 yesterday, which is right in line with today’s topic. You wrote, “Eliminating negative “externalities” in business transactions and having taxpayers pay for “public goods” which provide positive externalities are fundamental principles of free market economics.” I respectfully disagree with your value judgment. Neither
(1) eliminating negative externalities in business transactions, nor (2) having taxpayers pay for public goods which provide positive externalities,
are fundamental principles of free market economics. Those are merely political value judgments. That you are conscious of the concept of externalities is wonderful, but even grasping the concept of externalities does not economically support leftist seizure of private wealth to fund the predilections of the overlords. The $64,000 question is purely philosophical, to use your term, “who decides what is an undervalued economic good?” You argued that you do, and that Grady must be supported. Thus my argument @ 2:10 yesterday (wherein I demonstrated the flaw in your argument) by mockingly magnifying my own brilliant writings as an undervalued “externality” that must be supported by the unwilling taxpayers.
You may or may not be amused by a similar economic-based “the people are too stupid to do right” argument in today’s WSJ, (actually it is a review of a new book by Bryan Caplan) @ http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010316. Interesting argument, but I think I prefer the Buckley alternative.
By harold
July 10, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this
goober head, you have not only your commute to and from work.. you also have to commute to the volunteering location. that is what they are talking about.
it’s not “i have no time for volunteering because i choose to sit in traffic monday thru friday..”
it’s “i dont want to spend 2 MORE hours in traffic on saturday (when construction ensures the continued presence of traffic) to go give sponge baths to homeless people or wipe fishes’ asses or pick up all the garbage the church group left at the park or whatever
however, the biggest two reasons people here dont volunteer ares the same as the reasons nothing else good ever happens…
1: most everybody wastes all their free time at church functions and/or reading the bible
2: there is a big risk of contact with those icky icky brownish people if you volunteer. stick with planting trees or petting fish to avoid
By jbmlaw
July 10, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this
Additional note to CJ: two weeks ago, Dr. Williams made the same argument as my 8:10 post, but better, in an essay he titled “Straight Thinking 101,” @ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/archive.shtml. Dr. Sowell also published another set of his “Random Thoughts” today.
By Drive-by Media
July 10, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this
Kill the Umpire!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
July 10, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Nice Cherry Pick on ideologically driven research. I’m sure the there’s none coming from conservative causes.
As for long commutes, I’d say that they’re the single biggest source of stress, hate, loss of family time, injury and excess consumption in Atlanta (how many people died in traffic accidents last week?).
Jbmlaw said it himself. Think if he were able to take a train in to the big city and return to his small community outside Atlanta every day - in less time than he spends in the car now. He’d still be able to do all those wonderful small town things that he was doing previously.
Instead, he’s in suburban Atlanta hades. It’s temporary. Neighbors only have a fleeting relationship with each other. Nobody is from there. Everyone is Republican. They’re all afflicted with generalized maladies and take all the drugs that are advertised on tv.
Yuck.
By Jim
July 10, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
Trent Lott said on April 18, 2007, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … so far it’s working for us.”
Sorry to stray from Mr. Wooten’s essay about his attachment to his automobile and long rides to work, but the other day he referred to the U.S. House of Representatives as the Democratic do-nothing House, and although many responded correctly, I have a few details.
For literally years, Republicans, with a 55-seat majority, cried if Democrats even considered a procedural hurdle. They said voters would punish obstructionists. They said it was borderline unconstitutional. They said “to stand in the way of majority rule was to undermine a basic principle of our democratic system”. And wouldn’t you know it; the shameless hypocrites didn’t mean a word of it.
Why hasn’t the Democratic Congress had greater success passing legislation in its first six months? Because 239 separate pieces of legislation have passed the “Democratic do-nothing House”, only to find Senate Republicans objecting to just about every major piece of legislation that Democrats have tried to bring to the Senate floor.
It’s not only shameless, it’s cynical. Republicans expect to get away with this nonsense because they assume most Americans don’t know how effective even the threat of filibuster can be (they assume right). They figure, the more they obstruct, the worse Congress looks (as Trent Lott observed, it’s working).
Indeed, it’s quite a vicious cycle. Dems bring up a bill … Republicans block the bill … Republicans blame Dems for failing to deliver on their policy agenda. And if Americans aren’t paying attention, they fall for the con, as Mr. Wooten did on Friday.
Here are a few details
So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been thirteen cloture votes on motions to proceed – each one wasting days of Senate time. In comparison, in the first sessions of the two previous Congresses combined, there were a total of four cloture votes on motions to proceed.
Eight times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation (e.g. fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations improving security at our courts, Water Resources Development Act, Clean Energy Act, funding for the Intelligence Community)
Four times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated (including raising the minimum wage [it eventually passed only when it was attached to the bill funding further military operations in Iraq], ethics reforms, and funding for renewable energy)
Four times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote (including funding for the intelligence community, raising the minimum wage, ethics reforms and funding for renewable energy)
Twice Republicans blocked bills from going to conference (including blocking appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations and blocking appointing conferees on ethics reform)
By Drive-by Media
July 10, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
If Wooten’s intent this morning was to lull stalled commuters to sleep after reading his article on their Iphones, then I think he deserves the WolfBlitzer Prize! Lets check the traffic copter. Howz it look up there now that everyone has fallen asleep, Bill?
“(chp chp whp chp) Well, we’ve got bedrocked gridlocked, Joe. I’ve never seen more sub 5 mph rear end collisions in my 15 years of traffic reports. The cars appear to be bouncing back and forth in slow motion. It’s kinda cool.”
Well, Bill, how far do you think most commuters got into Wooten’s article, have you read it?
“zzzzz”.
Bill? Bill………BILL!!!!
By harold
July 10, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
everbody hangs on to their cars but how many have ever been off the block of their workplace downtown? most people have no idea what is just down the street from where they work. so why do they need a car at work? they dont!!!! they talk about running errands on the way home.. well why not take a train to and from work and then run your errand when you get home since you are only going a couple miles from your home? and if commuters were all on the train, your errands would take half the time because the traffic would be so light!
NO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY JULY 4, 2012
By Republicans and Filibusters
July 10, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this
Following up on Jim’s post at 8:54, I wonder how many Americans understand that you can’t pass legislation in America with 50% of the votes in Congress. How many of us understand that, outside of budget resolutions, you need 60 votes in the Senate — that a filibuster isn’t a matter of Jimmy Stewart talking himself ragged for hours on end, but of merely declaring an intention to filibuster? And that, in this Senate, this is done for all but the most routine matters? Maybe 2 percent of Americans?
In fact, the 60-vote minimum is no longer reserved for occasional high-profile issues, but has been institutionalized by minority Republicans for virtually all legislation of any consequence. Republicans drive to block everything that moves. Voters hear Democrats’ vow to tackle various legislative proposals, and then they hear that the bill failed. As far as Americans know, there’s a Democratic House and a Democratic Congress — why couldn’t they pass the legislation they said they’d pass?
Republican lawmakers, and apologists, routinely pour salt on the wound by lambasting Democrats for failing to deliver on their legislative agenda.
We know it’s because of Republican obstructionism, but if maybe 2% of the public understands what’s going on in the Senate, that’s 98% of the public that is under the mistaken impression that Democrats aren’t governing effectively.
As Jim’s earlier post demonstrated, this isn’t an example in which Republicans are just doing what Democrats did when the situation was reversed. This also isn’t an example is which “both sides” are to blame — one side is trying to pass popular legislation, the other side wants to obstruct it. Senate Republicans are basing their strategy on the notion that we won’t know better. They’re counting on our ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics.
The GOP has created a mess in the Senate. We need to make an effort to stay informed and not rely on the falsehoods and misrepresentation that come out of the mainstream media.
By Scholar
July 10, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
Just wanted to say good morning to you all and I hope you all have a pleasant day, conservative or liberal. I have a lot of stuff to do around the house as we are trying to sell it. I will be hauling dirt and trying to stay cool. Wish me luck.
By catlady
July 10, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this
, it took Georgia Power “approximately a nanosecond” to refute the charge.
H3ll, Ga Power had it refuted BEFORE it was published.
they’re taken as gospel, regardless of the sponsor’s agendas.
Mr. Wooten (and others) are VERY good at doing this (see Heritage Foundation, others)
Long commutes are bad. But they’re not the cause of all America’s ills.
Nor are Latinos.
By Dennis
July 10, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “The problem…is that many of those who conduct the studies stop when they get the answer they’re looking for. And on issues like global warming or the environment, unless we know the preconceptions of those who analyze the data, it’s hard to know whether…they found evidence of what they already believed — or whether the evidence led them to one conclusion to the exclusion of other possibilities.”
Say, Mr. Wooten, we know what the conclusions were, but suppose we could substitute your “global warming” with the word “Iraq”.
Now, exactly what was it that was the “evidence”?
Or was that just a pre-conclusioned “flawed study”?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Curious Observer
July 10, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
I see that yet another fundamentalist Republican has received God’s forgiveness for moral transgressions. Sen. David Vitter’s telephone number just happened to be in the D.C. Madam’s directory, and he talked to God and received forgiveness.
Being a fundamentalist is even better than being a Catholic. The Catholic must confess his sin to another human being, a priest. Republican fundamentalists simply cut out the middle man. So, Senator, join the long line of Republicans who preach the path of righteousness while doing just the opposite. At least your sin was with an adult, not with teenaged boys. Good to know that redneckism is alive and well.
By jm
July 10, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this
Mr. wooten, the same thing can be said about economic forecasts. Like Mark Twain said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”.
By Adam
July 10, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
As Jim states in his column, “Ordinarily, in the rush of the news, they’re taken as gospel, regardless of the sponsor’s agendas.”
We seldom know the real impetus behind these “studies” and therefore the validity. Seemingly anyone can print letterhead claiming to be some newly created “non-profit” independent group and fax whatever startling new findings they want to promote and it is taken as unrefutable truth. Further, the authors of these studies thereby claim expertise in whatever matter they are promoting and are in line for additional media promotion, grant funding, and endless accolades if it fuels a controversy and provides filler for cable air time.
No credentials needed, just pick a topic and with creative self promotion you can have quite a run.
By deegee
July 10, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
Vitter gives himself amnesty.
By jbmlaw
July 10, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Dear jacp @ 8:50, actually I think I must have written badly, I have confused you, and you are a pretty sharp reader. My present lack of volunteer work does not have a time-causation; I think it is because I don’t have any real emotional attachment to my home community. Suburbosis or something similar. I would find time if I really wanted to; just don’t feel the same motivation I used to feel.
By Southern Democrat
July 10, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or it’s the heat or I’m just cranky, but the essay offered today just slapped me in the face, shook me, and said, “This is why you get so frustrated when you talk to people on the far right!” To me, the thoughts expressed by Mr. Wooten are akin to the closed-mindedness of members of fundamentalist religions.
It continues to amaze me how the far right oversimplifies incredibly complex issues like foreign policy (preemption), the economy (the market is infallible), and religion/salvation (believe as I do and you’re okay, otherwise, take some sunscreen in the hearse), while simultaneously discarding any study that disagrees with their ideology as “subjective” or “biased.” It is incredibly frustrating because it leaves no room for rational discussion and a move towards collaboration.
Adam and others lament the ability of fledgling non-profits to promote their findings. Where do you think they’re getting their funding? Did you feel that way about the Swift Boat Veterans group whose accusations have been proved false? I certainly feel that way about MoveOn.org and other far left organizations that mimimize issues and candidates, but I don’t feel like I get the same reciprocity from the far right.
The beloved Ronald Reagan drove a hard bargain and stood on principle when necessary, but always, always, always left politics at the office and befriended most of his political “adversaries.” The Bush administration, who entered office amidst promises of “unifying” after the most contentious election in history, has done anything but.
This is not meant as a “can’t we all just get along” posting, but it is a request for a little more open-mindedness and willing to compromise and collaborate on both sides of the aisle… I think we all agree on more stuff than we care to admit, but are so entrenched in our thinking that we go to the same sources and receive the same reinforcement of our tightly-held beliefs day after day after day.
By Rev Haggard
July 10, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Oh dear. Think of the children Curious Observer. How am I supposed to explain this Sen Vitter situation to my children? This is not dinner table conversation.
What is tearing down the fabric of moral America and ripping it to shreds?
By time to laugh at obsessive sad lefties
July 10, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Just wanted to say a cheery cheers to the decidedly sad tw at yesterday that hilariously humiliated itself with a desperately feverish attempt at googling a few English cultural/slang references. It sure is nice to know that the pitifully pathetic lefties on here are so EASILY obsessively maniupulated by yours truly into such anal self humiliation.
inbred rednekkk when not coordinating volunteers for Aryan Nation hippety hop karaoke nights at the family run possum farm proudly volunteers for gathering wood for its fiery cross burnning workshops - a true labour of white supremacist love. harold selfessly volunteers at his daily morning noon and night Alcoholics Anonymous meetings - drunkenly hectoring the attendees about using bicycles instead of risking more DUIs -trying to save them from the even more inevitable fate of being churlishly run down by some far left brattish hypocritical eco whacko demoNcrat doing a ton in a Prius out of its head on ‘illegal’ prescription drugs. curious pee ing - or should that be peeping tom - volunteers at its local sad sack of poisonous leftist arsewipes local 666 Branch, joyously leading the official 45 minute Hate Bush chants before the communal fair trade sourced cocaine snorting. And aborted foreskin volunteers at the not (yet) secure (enough) home for badly bewildered little league wannabe comedians who have been mercilessly baseball batted by the more discerning - snigger - members of the Dickhead Comedy Club crowd on amateur nights - before being deservedly hurled out through the plate glass door into the gutter.
By Adam
July 10, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Southern Democrat @10:07
It’s not so much a case of my begrudging someone or some group promoting their cause. Rather, it is the unquestioning validity they are given by the media. An example is morning television and their reporting of “findings” of every sort, medical, financial, environmental, consumer safety, etc etc. There is seeingly no end to the helpful advice they are eager to dispense to their audience based on the latest study or opinion. Evidently there is an audience for this but the paternalistic attitude in which it is presented reflects a liberal nanny state mentality that flows naturally to the need for some government solution.
By Aquagirl
July 10, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
(believe as I do and you’re okay, otherwise, take some sunscreen in the hearse)
SD, One of the finer quotes I’ve read here.
Your entire 10:07 post should be required reading for all.
By Redneck Convert
July 10, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Well, I don’t understand much of what Wooten has wrote today. I know its something about a study that a bunch of libruls done and how it ain’t right. Of course it ain’t right. It was done by libruls. What do you expect? They are always against anything nucluer. Mention that word and they shiver and start sweating bullets.
I’m sorry to see TFTT is still off his meds. I never got on here till now and he’s already whacked me for something about possum farms and cross burning. It just shows what you get when you take in just anybody to this country. They need to start giving mental tests before they let people in. The poor man needs to be locked up in Grady in one of the head case wards. He is a desgrace to conservative folk.
I see this curious observer fellow just can’t go a day without taking a poke at conservatives. Poor Vitter ain’t guilty of nothing but being stupid. He already had enough trouble, what with having a wife. Then he goes and takes up with a woman that ain’t his wife. I figure he’s as stupid as this Giuliani. Giuliani couldn’t learn his lesson after being married oncet. His head is so clogged up he had to go marry two other women.
Anyway, I will try to follow along today. But I have to say Wooten is reaching pretty far for a topic. If I could get the gist of what he is saying maybe I could make sense of it all. But I always say, you don’t have to know much to be a good conservative.
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
COME ON YOU SMUG LEFTIES
tell us all about the abject pathetic failure of the 24 hour global whining screech fest … not even 3 million tuned in for NBC’s flag ship prime time evening pukecast. virtually the same for the BBC figures in UK prime time - just as pathetic, ALMOST NO ONE CARED - ALMOST NO ONE WATCHED …
tell us just how many of the 2 BILLION the vainglorious lying arsewipe alBore ludicrously claimed would watch globally actually watched!!
just a self aborbed obsessive propoganda rant by narcissistic eco whacko brain dead celebutards!!
LMFAO!!!
I proudly didn’t see a second of this execrable gobsh!te
and that deranged R Kennedy Jr nutter needs deporting!!
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
July 10, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Greetings, decent folk and Woo-ten Klanners. It is We your Pope from London today.
Today the papers are reporting on the inability of the airlines and airports here to secure additional runways. The reason is not so much airport noise and congestion, it has more to do with the environment. Many (it appears most) British citizens question the need for additional airplanes to fly soccer hooligans around Europe (and tranny-trash to America) and trash the atmosphere. Based on current rates of growth, pollution caused by airplanes flying in and out of the UK will surpass pollution from autos in 6 to 8 years.
So how does this relate to Jim’s column today? Obviously, Jim, being a redneck, sh-its where he eats, like all you morons do. Even a gawddamn dawg is smart enough to figure out you don’t do that, but not you effing rednecks.
So, stay in your cars, live in your sh-itboxes in the ‘burbs, miles from everywhere, strangle on your own dirty air and bleed yourselves dry putting gas in your SUVs. Better yet, build nuclear power plants in the ‘burbs too. Heck, we don’t need no stinkin’ gummint regulation, especially if all we’re gonna do is kill more rednecks sooner. That’s actually a good thing, come to think of it…
Lord, educate the redneck, or eradicate him. In Jesus’s name We the Pope pray.
By time to laugh at obsessive sad lefties
July 10, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
inbred rednekkk obviously cannot publicly admit its membership of the Aryan Nation - else they’d skin it alive or summat equally enormously amusing. Watching inbred rednekkk puke up its usual daily envious semi-literate leftist white supremacist drivel about conservatives is still occasionally mildly amusing. Stick to what you viscerally do best inbred - your relentless anti-black hate and leave the erudite, incisive political commentary to centre-right folks who actually understand the world and how it works.
Best of luck in your monthly Aryan Nation kiss a hooded cobra contest tonite!!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
July 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
I hate to even respond to someone who’s words read like nails on a blackboard, but I must.
You’re confusing Gore’s popularity with the actual facts as they relate to Global Warming. Unfortunately for you, the two are not related. Al Gore’s popularity has no bearing on the state of our climate, just as Bush’s dismal approval ratings have no bearing on the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
For your benefit, here’s what Newt Gingrich, conservative Standard Bearer, has to say about Global Warming, as reported by the Boston Globe earlier this year:
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming But he and Kerry differ on solutions
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON — In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a “smackdown” between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry’s recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party’s inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
Loser. Now go away.
By time to laugh at obsessive sad lefties
July 10, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
@ Mrs Oedipus-NAMBLA nee rednekkks
Your leprosy ridden uncle/daddy and maiden aunty parents are breathlessly awaiting your return from that Bwarney Fwank little boys club for chemically castrated cut and run ageing impotent sexual predator leftists in Assachussetts to the child molesting capital of the USA in VT.
Then they can relieve us all of this pestilential pinko pervert plague once and for all by plopping your toadish yanKKKee anal wart infested paedophile arse back in the rusty familial abortion bucket so they can drown you properly this time in your sister’s lesbian cow afterbirth!!
By jbmlaw
July 10, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 10:07, you are generally less cranky than I on a daily basis, so you always get a sympathetic ear from me. I think there is reasonable causation for the distinction at the heart of your complaint: “It continues to amaze me how the far right oversimplifies incredibly complex issues like foreign policy (preemption), the economy (the market is infallible), and religion/salvation (believe as I do and you’re okay, otherwise, take some sunscreen in the hearse), while simultaneously discarding any study that disagrees with their ideology as “subjective” or “biased.””
I think the answer is in Dr. Williams’s essay from two weeks ago, link listed in my 8:30 post. The essay opens: “Just about the most difficult lesson for first-year economics students, and sometimes graduate students, is that economic theory, and for that matter any scientific theory, is positive or non-normative. You might ask, “What’s this business about positive and normative?” It’s easy. Positive statements deal with what was, what is or what will be. Normative, or subjective, statements deal with what’s good or bad, or what ought to be or should be. Confusing the two leads to considerable mischief.” I magnify Dr. Williams’s argument, which develops as the most concise explanation of what economics is and does, and what it is not and does not, that I have ever seen. In all fairness, I believe conservatives are no more fickle in our biases or methods than are our progressive friends.
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
@ jims an arselicker
alBore’s popularity!!! HA HA HA HA LMFAO
he manages about 15% in polls for the demoNcrat cut and run primary. NO ONE of any note or worth cares about him - happil he won’t run again because he was already beaten by BUsh and won’t risk a humiliating second defeat!!! he is laughed and and sneered at factually by most independent competent objective scientists. he lies and distorts and indulges in Goebbels like hysteria. he is a barefaced vainglorious liar and eco gas guzzling electricity wasting hypocrite who literally buys and sells his own freaking carbon credits … he even beat the Arkansas rapist in the “I cannot recollect that” race when being questioned under oath in a deposition on the Bhuddist Temple demoNcrat funding scam.
ONE HOUR ON A LIBERAL CARRYING LEAR JET IS THE EQUIVALENT (in fumes) TO ONE YEAR OF A NORMAL (SINGLE) CAR USE!!
and loser … THERE ARE NO FACTS ON GLOBAL WHINING!!!
a 1.F increase in a century or so is NOT global warming. The Greenland glacier is actually thickening - despite desperate lefty lies/assertions to the contrary. The previous warming spells both hundreds and tens of thousands of years ago ALL occured with NO industrialisation, jet engines or petrol engines and with tiny global populations. The doomsday lefty eco whacko scenarios are pathetically predicated on deeply flawed models which simply are NOT the case. Indeed the Greenland glaciers in previous warming spells did NOT melt and flood coastal areas.
You sad leftist turds simply puke up lies and halfwitted utterly unsupported assertions. Yes modern day pollution should be addressed - but it is the SUN SPOTS which are the main trigger - a purely natural factor which is cyclical!! There is NO credible evidence of global warming - its just the new sick and twisted lefty religion!!
we had anti-Vietnam war lefty military haters, then hate America CND whiners and the abject lies about REagan NOT the commie USSR is the threat, we had a few years of apartheid marches, we’ve had AIDS and queer pooftah hysteria when it was virtually ONLY them getting infected , we’ve had years of be ludicrously be nice to hateful shrill queers campaigns, we now have the disgusting pandering to illegal leeches, we have the insane leftist denial and systematic undermining of the war on towel head terror … all of this puke came from the noxious vile left!!!
I have seen Newt repeatedly sneer, on live TV, using science and facts, about global whiners and global whining!!! One poxy, very selectively quoted paragraph does NOT undermine that!!
STFU!!!
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
TELL US jim’s an arselicker
HOW MANY OF THE CONSTANTLY QUOTED by the alBore 2 BILLION actually watched this worthless obsessive UTTERLY ONE SIDED global whining screech fest??!! The ratings were very very low in the liberal with a small ‘l’ western democracies who gushed and gushed about this sh!te … so that leaves approximately - what? being very generous - about 1.6 billion in the third world??!! HA HA HA HA
I can just as equally emptily assert that 4.5 billion - or more - will watch the next Bush press conference … but CLEARLY they wont!!!
YOU sad dishonest lefty pukes make me sick - but at least I get to mercilessly laugh at ya and ridicule ya every day!!!
By GlobalTruth
July 10, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
stop global whining by global whiners…Gore runs, he wins! Deal with it Andy. And by the way, I’m sure your hero, the serial adulterer Gingrich could possibly be up for a little gay action with you tonight sugar britches. The only question is which of you is the pitcher and who is the catcher. But I guess you could swap out from time to time. And by the way. Did you enjoy the Gay Pride parade?
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this
HA HA HA HA
preDICKTable as a Kennedy or a Klinton lying the leftist homo obsessed scum on here post queeralicious abuse but simply CANNOT answer the awkward facts posted!!!
LETS MAKE IT REAL EASY … which of the sad obsessive leftist eco whackos on here did NOT watch the global whining screech fest??!!!
surely they ALL watched ALL 24 hours of it like good little eco whacko lemmings - or at THE VERY LEAST all the 8 or so pathetic hours of the USA drivel!!
I proudly didn’t see a second of this gobsh!te!!
AND AS USUAL I AM IN THE MAJORITY!!
By JD
July 10, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
SD@10:07,
I agree with your post in general but with one major caveat: Substitute “Far Left” for “Far Right” and you have the frustration the moderates and right feel when confronted with a Democrat or Liberal.
My point is that there is no moral high ground for either side in most of the debate. There is a firmly placed unwillingness to listen from either side. The posts here quickly degenerate into name-calling and expletives from the usual suspects but in general there is little give-and-take.
Being somewhat right of center I see the unwavering attacks on Bush and his policies (beginning before he took office) from the Left as the “politics of hate”. You on the Left will have your own benchmarks.
Both sides are interested only in maintaining power. We, the people, are not represented by either party in Washington and anyone who thinks those in Congress or the White House care about our positions is just wrong.
Polls drive their decisions, the failed immigration legislation is a prime example, and only when faced with overwhelming opposition (or support) will the votes reflect the people’s wishes. The Right considers the defeat of the bill a victory and I argue the defeat only proves my point.
Senators from both sides of the aisle spoke strongly for passage when the bill was first proposed but when a vocal opposition made their position known the Senators caved. If this was a good, effective piece of legislation then the Senators should have voted their conscience.
By Southern Democrat
July 10, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
JD,
Agreed completely. I tried to express that by stating my disdain for MoveOn.org and other far left organizations, but don’t think my point came across fully.
One thing I have enjoyed about reading this blog & commentary is being able to have rational discussions with “un”like-minded people… again, I think we all agree on more than we like to admit.
How do we escape this bunker mentality and elect more people who are willing to buck the party line and vote their consciences (e.g., Lieberman, Bloomberg, etc.)?
By Jackie
July 10, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Albert Gonzales was informed by the FBI of their illegal wiretaps of American citizens three months prior to testimony given to the Senate committee. We have our chief law enforcement officer obstructing justice by covering up a crime. Will the President remove this man from office, or, will the Repubs in the Senate vote with the Dems to bring charges against this criminal activity?
By Poofs for Dumbya
July 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
This guy time for the truth was talking about anal self humiliation.
I think he just described his whole life with those three words.
What a wanker.
By getalife
July 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
This is how we should deal with corruption and wingnuts
By RCH
July 10, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
Getalife There would be a massive “brown out” to electrocute all those politicians. LOL. You couldn’t give senate and congressional seats away. Not a bad idea.
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
By Poofs for Dumbya
July 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
This guy time for the truth was talking about anal self humiliation.
I think he just described his whole life with those three words.
What a wanker.
There she blows … the cowardly queeralicious leftist dogturd pukes on time folks!!!
still waiting to hear which lefties on here did/didn’t watch the whole global screeching fest!!! Those that didn’t are TRAITORS AND SELL OUTS to the global whining cult!!!
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
By Poofs for Dumbya
July 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
This guy time for the truth was talking about anal self humiliation.
I think he just described his whole life with those three words.
What a wanker.
There she blows … the cowardly queeralicious leftist dogturd pukes on time folks!!!
still waiting to hear which lefties on here did/didn’t watch the whole global screeching fest!!! Those that didn’t are TRAITORS AND SELL OUTS to the fraudulent global whining cult!!! … snigger
By stop global whining by global whiners
July 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
this is EXACTLY how we should deal with corrupt cut and run leftists:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070710083811.uiul803x&show_article=1
stoned slackers - each and every one - (gedditt??)
By CJ
July 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Hello jbm,
Thanks for your reply to my comments.
I agree with the assessment, shared with Southern Democrat, that economics is both positive and non-normative (i.e. objective). I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that students of economics have difficulty with this truth; they don’t.
Economics students also have no difficulty understanding the fundamental economic principle (not value judgment) that externalities are considered to be economic impediments to free markets (other such impediments include scarcity power and information asymmetry). In fact, it is a “sensible, empirically proved policy about which nearly all economists agree” — you’ll find it covered in almost every macro-economics textbook (not written by Thomas Sowell). (To your example, if your posts are increasing advertising revenue to AJC.com, then there’s no reason why they wouldn’t be willing to compensate you to keep them coming. With your strong legal and business background, eliminating that externality should be relatively simple.)
Responding to your question, “who decides what is an undervalued economic good?” – since, as you say, economics is non-normative, then we can look to the economists for help with such decisions. When it comes to public goods like national and local security (e.g. military, police, fire), public health (e.g. taxpayer funded immunization shots for children), transporation infratructure and public safety (e.g. food supply, water, air), economists have overwhelmingly decided and empirically proved their case over the course of decades.
As I indicated yesterday, the far right’s “seizure of private wealth” from this and future generations to maintain the military industrial complex is evidence of their general agreement with, and exploitation of, the fundamental economic principle regarding positive externalities and public goods.
By jbmlaw
July 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon CJ, I agree with your assessment of the “theoretical tool” of externality analysis, and disagree with your assertion that any particular application of the principle would constitute anything other than a value judgment.
By @@
July 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Hold the telethon phones Jim.
Forget the commute time as the excuse NOT to volunteer. I’m not buying it either.
The educational and ownership factor is what I find intriguing.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight?
If you are educated and own your own home, you can’t empathize but do volunteer? Or is it that you are excused from volunteering because you aren’t educated and own nothing but CAN EMPATHIZE.
Volunteering costs a person NOTHING BUT their time. Anybody and everybody can afford to do it.
The conservatives are more inclined to believe that “all politics are local”.
The liberals believe that “all politics are federal”.
So much for Hillary’s “it takes a village” philosophy. That dang U.S. “community” village is too obscured. You can’t see the community for the government weeds.
By Oh the Humidity!
July 10, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this
Andy/Markus/tftt has a brother in Massachusetts?
A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/10/reluctant.juror.ap/index.html
By something very queer about the vile demoNcrats
July 10, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
SICK QUEER LOVING demoNcrat LEFTIST SCUM now shamefully PANDERING TO POOFS AND D IKES!!
This is utterly pathetic and shows just how linguine spined and utterly worthless the cut and run fawning leftists are!! First queers - what next paedophiles or bigamists, or hate America traitors … ooops too late!!!
Story is on Drudge!!
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/071007debate.htm
By Captain Freedom
July 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
Like his good friend TFTT, the Captain finds himself feeling unhinged and virtually inarticulate at the thought of the Godly Senator Vitter diddling a paid-for harlot notmen person. The Captain was certain this calumny was a shameless defamation perpetrated by the Godless Left, until Sen. V ill-advisedly admmitted to the whole mess. I am not sure which is the greater disappointment…the sin, or the lack of cover-up.
The Captain feels himself cast adrift, a veritable compass without a center. If our Godly Leaders cannot resist the siren call of steamy, illicit sex with (wo)men not our wives, how can lowly Keyboard Warriors like Tftt and the Captain resist the urge to dally with a (wo)man of the street, or at the very least to allow ourselves a little fondle below the Equator in pursuit of Onan’s fruit?
But no! This way lies madness. A Keyboard Warrior cannot effectively fight Islamoprostifacism whilst typing with one hand. Time for more cheetos and ice cream bars…the only sure defense against these impure, beastly imulses is to bury them under a thick layer of hard-to-digest food, where they can be safely ignored…until we involuntarily dream of well-oiled muscle men in chaps who spank us mercilessly until we emit a la nocturne.
It is indeed a sad day.
By Barbara
July 10, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
My Captain,
You’re more than welcome to visit my house for snacks anytime…they’re on me. And don’t be concerned that I might not like what I see. Male pattern baldness and thick layers of hard-to-digest food expose vulnerabilities in a super-hero that I can truly appreciate.
Yours always,
Barbara
P.S. Your first visit is free.
By something very queer about the vile demoNcrats
July 10, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
Its freaking hilarious and very telling seeing just how authoratitively and “lovingly” the odious queeralicious leftist vermin on here write so volubly about their effete, mincing fellow queers and poofs. Given their party of hate’s literally anal obsessive addicktion to shameful decades of pandering to queersanddikes and the various AIDS tainted concourses of demoNcrat buggers that are puked up at the party of liberal hate America slush fund fund raisers this gleeful demoNcrat homo accomodation is hardly surprising.
L Cpl Syphilis needs to selflessly forego its expensive experimental sugar daddy funded syphilis treatment and allow the needfully vengeful (in this deserving case) disease to fully take hold so it may finally - be still my beating heart - swiftly rid us of this pestilential turd burgling supercilious retarded dolt that does more for hard not flaccid queer demoNcrat support than a 1000 cloned Bwarney Fwank’s swishing noisily on the prowl in pinko Assachussetts for nancy sailor boys in yanKKKee shirtlifting Boston harbour.
By something very queer about the vile demoNcrats
July 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
Its freaking hilarious and very telling seeing just how authoratitively and “lovingly” the odious queeralicious leftist vermin on here write so volubly about their effete, mincing fellow queers and poofs. Given their party of hate’s literally anal obsessive addicktion to shameful decades of pandering to queersanddikes and the various AIDS tainted concourses of demoNcrat buggers that are puked up at the party of liberal hate America slush fund fund raisers this gleeful demoNcrat homo accomodation is hardly surprising.
L Cpl Syphilis needs to selflessly forego its expensive experimental sugar daddy funded syphilis treatment and allow the needfully vengeful (in this deserving case) disease to fully take hold so it may finally - be still my beating heart - swiftly rid us of this pestilential turd burgling supercilious retarded dolt that SINGLE HANDEDLY does more for hard not flaccid queer demoNcrat support than a 1000 cloned Bwarney Fwank’s swishing noisily on the prowl in pinko Assachussetts for nancy sailor boys in yanKKKee shirtlifting Boston harbour.
By Captain Freedom
July 10, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
The Captain apologizes for taking the conversation off-topic, and wishes to make amends.
The Captain is foursquare in favor of even longer commutes, as they exhaust the practitioner to the point where marital infidelity is simply out of the question. And anything that supports the inviolable sanctity of marriage is a-ok in the Captain’s book. The Captain drives 85 minutes each way, and has never stepped out on Mrs Freedom. Cogito ergo est pluribus coitos nyet.
Alas, the Captain’s “research” indicates that the longer the commute, the greater the likelihood that the commuter will engage in behind-the-wheel autoerato. While not as difficult as typing one-handed, it is a disgusting experience to see someone doing this, if the faces on the people around the Captain’s research vehicle are any indication. The Captain’s research has also produced statistical evidence that this practice is most probable to occur while listening to Boortz or Hannity. Something about the quality of their voices, I surmise.
By there's something very queer about the vile demoNcrats
July 10, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
Lance Corporal Syphilis very obviously has never fully recovered its composure and ‘romantic’ confidence since that dreadful involuntary incident of coitus interruptus perpetrated so inartfully and catastrophically as captured in all its prepubescent monochrome glory on WSB TV with its lascivious neighbour’s heavily pregnant nanny goat.
Please excuse Syphilis’ puking up its unfulfilled self indulgent peeping tom/aborted foreskin like fantasies to total (cyber) strangers.
By Captain Freedom
July 10, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this
Barbara,
How I have missed you! Thank you for your kind invitation.
A pity noone else bothered to respond to my post. It is quiet here today, isn’t it.
Fond Regards, Your Captain
By Drive-by Media
July 10, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
Hannity is in Gwinnett on a big live show with Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is not a threat to Hillary (the woman I love). His talking points and his delivery are hayseed at best. I noticed that when he was on Leno. He just doens’t have “it”.
Hannity and Thompson are still explaining the consequences of US troops leaving Iraq incorrectly.
So I challenge the Right to describe a scenario where it will be possible to pull out US troops from Iraq.
Idiotic and wrong answers include: “When the job is done. When victory is achieved. When Al Queda surrenders.” those are generalities that say nothing.
Define victory. Be careful. Too many americans are now educated about Iraq and it’s real easy to make a horse’s patoot out of yourself talking about a post-US Iraq.
By Oh the Humidity!
July 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this
Why is there always one boorish and depraved lout on these blogs? And what if there were no rhetorical questions?
By Captain Freedom
July 10, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this
By Oh the Humidity!
July 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this
Why is there always one boorish and depraved lout on these blogs? And what if there were no rhetorical questions?
The Captain admits to being Boortz-ish, especially as regards his hairline.
By Kevin D.
July 10, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this
I don’t think is the strongest argument for national healthcare. My own belief, based on looking at the numbers, is that national healthcare might reduce overall healthcare costs in America by a bit, but probably not by much (and maybe not at all). A French-style system that paid doctors and nurses at American levels, for example, would be only moderately less expensive than our current system. In the end, given the political realities of constructing a universal plan, we’d probably save some money on administration, spend some extra money to insure all the uninsured, and end up with total costs only a bit less than we have now.
Which is fine with me. A system that works better and doesn’t cost any more strikes me as a huge win for everyone. Rather than overall cost, then, the selling point of national healthcare is freedom from the endlessly gnawing problems of our current jury rigged system. For example: HMOs that make it hard to see a specialist. High and rising copayments. Fear of losing coverage if you lose your job. Long waits for non-urgent care. New (and usually worse) healthcare coverage every time your HR department is told to find a cheaper plan.
And more: Small businesses that have a hard time attracting good employees because they can’t afford to offer health coverage. Big business that are on the verge of bankruptcy because of skyrocketing health costs. Lack of choice in physicians because you’re limited to whichever medical groups have signed contracts with your company’s insurance carrier. Losing your longtime family doctor because your company switches insurance carriers and you can only see doctors on your new carrier’s approved list.
And yet more: The risk of financial ruin if someone in your family has a truly catastrophic illness. Crowded emergency rooms that have essentially become clinics of last resort for the poor. 43 million people who lack health coverage of any kind.
Reducing healthcare costs ought to be a goal of any national healthcare plan, and a truly national plan is probably the only way we’ll ever accomplish that. But that’s not the way to sell it. Freedom from fear, freedom from pain, and freedom of choice are the ways to sell it.
So: maybe I should head to the closest theater and finally see SiCKO? I think I might just do that.
By harold
July 11, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this
this is getting like the vents.. harold cant tell if they have been updated or not because they all sound the same
By Van
July 11, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this
I have always felt the debate was o the wrong topic. This should not be about nationalizing a large portion of the US economy, but to assist those that do not have access to healthcare insurance.
There have been various posters talking about the 40+ million uninsured, or those that at one time in the last 12 months had no heathcare insurance.
In this group are the hard core uninsured, those that are between jobs, therefore fall into this category and those that choose not to buy healthcare insurance.
First the hard core uninsured, some say this is about 10% of the uninsured. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to allow these folks to obtain health insurance and little or no cost?
The second group, the between jobs folks, make insurance available on a sliding scale bases on income and family size.
The last group is the oddest. one part of this group does not have insurance by choice and either doesn’t think they need it or pays for their healthcare out of pocket. The other group has healthcare offered but can not afford it. For example, Wal-Mart offerers insurance, but not everyone wants to budget for it, or can’t just afford it.
While for 90+% of us have some form of healthcare, the liberals and progressives want a solution that will be forced on everyone, but isn’t needed by everyone.
Make the insurance optional and available, if they do not want it, then they can make their own plans.
By Curious Observer
July 11, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
Van’s suggestion to focus only on health care for those who do not have insurance is typically short-sighted.
What does he think will happen once the federal government makes health care coverage available on a voluntary basis at little or no cost?
I can assure you that employers will start dumping their existing group insurance on all employees as quickly as possible and forcing them to join the government-paid plan.
We’ve seen this before. The minute a covered employee becomes eligible for Medicare, the group plan designates Medicare as the “primary payer,” but there is no reduction in the premium for the group plan. The entitlement program that employers and health care executives pretend to hate so much is suddenly welcomed.
We’ve also seen it with pension plans, too. Look at any corporate defined benefit pension plan and you will see that the plan’s benefit is reduced by the anticipated amount of the Social Security benefit for which a recipient becomes eligible. Again, a detested entitlement program is cynically used by employers to reduce costs.
Don’t pretend that a move to afford government-paid health coverage for only a select percentage of the population will have no consequences for everybody else. You can be assured that those consequences will go far beyond the taxation required to underwrite the coverage.
By Van
July 11, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer
I still do not see why you think nationalizing Medical Heath Care is in the best interest of this country?
Personally, I would like to see health care back in the hands of the medical folks and not accountants.
By Van
July 11, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
BTW, your argument about pensions and SS benefits is an apple and orange ploy. SSA is not an option for the majority of folks, it is a required tax on the working folks.
If National health care is implemented, you will see these benefits dropped from the employees benefits packages faster than a democrat can spend your money.
This would mean an overall drop in pay. A benefit taken away is an expense cut for business and a overall pay package decrease for the working folks.
A nationalized health care, regardless of which type of plan would mean every working person would feel a massive tax increase to pay for it.
Right now, my health care is partially paid by myself and the company I work for. This makes it affordable for me. I actually have two company health plans to choose from and I picked the best bang for the buck.
Not everyone has this choice and with a national health care, no one will ever again. With the state or federal governments offering a first or second option to the mix, folks can take the time and compare benefits and decide on their own which they would like. A very democratic method.
By Van
July 11, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
For those that think raising taxes on the working man is a good thing, think about this
This article was written by Monisha Bansal, staff writer for CNSNews.com
Conservative taxpayer groups say Wednesday, July 11, marks the day this year when the average American worker will have earned enough to pay for his or her share of government taxes (federal, state and local) plus the cost of regulation.
Since 2001, the date has ranged from July 1 to July 12. It was July 12 last year.
And this one
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation’s budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.
President Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance.
The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year’s deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.
I guess this means that things are not going so well for the tax and spenders.
By Drive-by Media
July 11, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this
Things R going great for the tax and spend congress, both dems and reps. The only truth Ralph Nader ever said was there’s no difference between dems and reps.
We have bigger problems than our corrupt congress.
We have a country to save, and a world to convince. We are stuck forever in Iraq.
Is there one amoung you who disputes this? My predictions are like Nostradumass’s: I know all. I see all. I AM RETROROCKETMAN!~!!!
I challenge both the right and the left to describe a scenario where we can leave Iraq.
Also, extra credit for anyone who can define the mission for US troops in Iraq on July 11, 2007.
By Mark
July 13, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
How much of the power generated by these nuke plants are for the citizens of Georgia or is this just another ruse by the Southern Company to build in an easier (bubba, buddy, good old boy) environment. For an example take a look Southern Company’s Arkwright coal burning plant in Macon, GA, all power produced from this plant is sent to the heavily regulated state of Florida. Go figure.