DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:40 AM:The post from "Ron" (8/1/ - 8:30pm) continues to simply make up his own voodoo economic theories (or pass them along from the tinfoil wearing crackpots of right wing radio), and as usual he simply pulls numbers out of thin air. The difference between me and "Ron" is that I will provide the actual U.S. GOVERNMENT figures to back up what I say. My figures are from the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) of the current Bush administration, and can be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
(Yes, I have cited this source before, but the funny thing about real facts is that the same sources remain valid over time.)
Please note, the surplus years I incuded covered the TOTAL income and expenses, including BOTH on-budget and off-budget items.
And if "Ron" wants to dispute these official figures for budget items, he is going to have to provided a better source AND explain why they are better than these official figures.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:52 AM:The published letter from Murel Fisk echoes similar made-up numbers to those that we saw in the post yesterday from "Ron" at 3:48pm using made-up numbers.
He says that the national debt by 1981 was more than two trillion dollars, but the U.S. Treasury Dept notes that by 1981 the national debt was less than one trillion.
Note the actual history of the U.S. Debt on the U.S. Government official Treasury list of the history of the debt, at:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
(this is different from the budget deficits/surpluses I posted previously, which are the annual changes in the national indebtedness; this chart merely shows the total amount of all indebtedness, including bond obligations at total face value, not the net present payoff value.
As you can see, Fisk, like "Ron," continues to use figure that someone has simply pulled out of thin air, without documenting where they came from because, unlike liberals, they can't.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:38 AM:Yes, Neil Kramer, Dr. Nick is not only an inspiration to many, he is a friend of Mrs. Alf.
I have nothing but praise for the work that Dr. Nick has done and is doing.
His folks make mean gyros.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:14 AM:>>I wonder why: Tri-City Hospital wants the few homeowners to pay for the many users?>> I wouldnt say Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista are "a few homeowners". Besides, Chula Vista has their hospitals, Encinitas has theirs, La Jolla has theirs, Escondido has theirs, San Diego has theirs, etc. Liberals say NO to TriCity for one reason-- their jelousy and envy of the $500,000 salary of the chief administrator. Its just the point of view liberals operate from.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:26 AM:I see the liberals are parading every eco-wacko scientist in front of the media, trying to make us believe it would take 10 years to get a drop of oil from new drilling, to the market. The Chinese did it in 13 months for Cuba with slant wells 50 miles off our Florida Keys coast line. It seems the rest of the world is drilling, while all the liberals sit back, very happy to send $800 billion of our dollars to the petty dictators, as they bash Bush for spending. Liberals don't care about the jobs that are disappearing and the ugly inflation in the system, because they know their stonewalling can somehow be blamed on Bush. But, somehow I think that right after the convention, the republicans will come out swinging, with all the names of the liberals who say NO to drilling, and jobs, and curing his inflation. This issue will cause an electoral armageddon for liberals, and the only one who sees it is George Soros, and he's desperately trying to reverse the prices the speculators have driven up, in order to secure a Hussein victory. He only has another $45 dropin oil price to go.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:37 AM:I see Bush has signed a bill that will lead to tens of thousands of Africans with AIDS to claim asylum and enter the USA. Bush needs to be committed to an asylum and put into a nice presidential canvas suit with lots of straps and buckles. He just sent $46 billion to the AIDS racketeers in Africa, and now the US will reward ... with unteathered USA citizenship???

Focal Point wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:25 AM:DD Wiz[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:52 AM:
He also failed to factor in the cost of the Vietnam War, Regan's vast military buildup, cost of Gulf War I and Gulf War II, as well as the cost of bailing out commercial banks this year.

Oh Yeah wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:27 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:37 AM: And know Bush thinks that he can dictate to Russia as he did to Iraq.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:58 AM:>>>as well as the cost of bailing out commercial banks this year.>>> That cost was really from liberals who caught the real estate greed late, bought a home by telling lies on their application, and as soon as hey were underwater on the deal, they just packed up and headed for the hills

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:01 AM:>>>And know Bush thinks that he can dictate to Russia as he did to Iraq.>>> As the liberals cheer for Russia for crushing tiny Georgia. Liberals bash Bush for helping to rid the filth form Iraq & Afghanistan, and they praise Russia for grabbing Georgia. And with Bush, it was "For the Oil". Have you heard a liberals say Russia's invasion was "For the Oil". You'll never hear that out of the liberals

Murel Fisk and John McCain wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:21 AM:I don't know about you, but I would like to think we can move past Vietnam. It's been over 30 years since that war ended. But if you read letter-writers like Murel Fisk, or listen to the speeches of John McCain, you'd think we were still waist deep in big muddy. There is a large but thankfully dwindling group of Americans, mostly men, who have chosen to define themselves in Vietnam-era terms. They will not budge from believing that Vietnam is THE issue. They continue to rant in terms that put every modern problem in 1970's terminology. Iraq is the central front. Better to fight them there than here. The liberal press is the cause of our not winning. Blah blah blah. Trying to fit the 21st Century into a 1968 world view. Over what? Bruised machismo. As simple as that. These throwbacks cannot get over their rage at being humiliated by Ho Chi Minh all those decades ago, and, as McCain says, they "will never surrender" until their mojo is restored via violence. How many senseless deaths, how many idiotic foreign policy decisions, will it take to satisfy these windmill-warriors? Do we have to wait for this entire generation of war-mongers to die off before we are finally freed from their bruised egos? Up to us. A vote for Obama is a vote for living in the present.

Chris to Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:25 AM:No don't misrepresent me. I never said that all military personnel were guilty or that Bush doesn't deserve the blame for this monstrous thing we have done. However the military is responsible for how the war was waged. Our military brass trashed the Geneva conventions with the blessing of Bush and the corrupt American people. The American people supported this war and so did our so-called representatives. However as I said I have followed this since the beginning. Bush did not tell our military to shoot the reporters in the Palestine hotel. Bush did not tell our military to use cluster bombs and white phosphorous. The Jessica Lynch thing was another example of military lies. The shooting of that Iraqi in the mosque and lack of charges brought by the military is a good example of the brutality and barbarism exhibited by our military. My point is that we excuse the atrocities committed by our military because we are a corrupt people and that is why I say that blaming Bush for everything is wrong not because he is blameless. Our military is a bloated monster and the people running it are despicable and many of the grunts are sadistic in their own right. The Nazis and Red army have nothing over our military as far as brutality are concerned.

Oh Yeah wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:32 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:01 AM: Cuz Russia has plenty of oil. Way I heard tell, those cowboy Georgians rode into South Otessia and shot some of them Russians and then decided to kill those unarmed civilian types who weren't just like them. Why should Liberals say anything about Georgia? Bush set that one up just like he did in Iraq. Probably is that Russian Bear is a big lady and close to her habitat. But, trust ole Chuck to blaim the Liberals when it was Bush who was training the Georgians and sending them arms.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:34 AM:The news is reporting that the Russian soldiers take 20 Georgian troops prisoner at key port. I wonder how many liberals in Russia will be spewing hate at Putin and the army if those prisoners are put in panties?? Also, I wonder how many Russian soldiers will be in chains and charged with phoney murders by Vladamir Murtha? Most of all, I wonder how many billions of our petro dollars Russia will spend to rebuild Georgia?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:35 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:58 AM: Poor people are just poor looking for a home. Those scurilous lenders robbed them, and the taxpayer. Did they check their IDs to see if they were liberals? Doubt it.
Thanks for the entertainment.

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:44 AM:The post from "Wizzer" @4:40 AM {Wow, I am impressed, a man after my own heart, getting up to work early?, or couldn't sleep because of my previous post?}
Either way...

Here's how the scam works.

I can be financially flush, on budget this month, this year, by raiding my 401K plan. That's how the government "balanced" it's budget. Sure, my "out-year's" I owe more, way more cause of interest, but that does not concern me now. Congress raids Social Security surpluses each year for billions, that are then taken into the General Fund for discretionary spending. Things like a Bridge to Nowhere, a Rainforest in Iowa, a Cowgirl Museum, or as Hillary wanted a Woodstock Museum. Real important things like that.
And, I should add, without a plan to EVER pay the money back in. Only a plan to tax the next generation.

The real scam here is how they have convinced some that taking their retirement monies to spend today is actually a good way to do business.
Just goes to show you how far down the intellectual ladder we have fallen as Americans. No wonder we are getting out paced by other economies, we can't even be honest about how we "manage" our own money.

The accounting scheme, and that's truly what it is, are a thing that should rightly be compared to "Arthur Andersen/Enron" accounting techniques.

You see, what makes me different than my good friend Wizzer, is that, I don't consider retirement money as open season to my daily, or monthly needs. He does. He see's the 12.4% you and I pay every pay period, as money to be spent this year, in addition to the 15%, or whatever bracket you find yurself. The real tax rate should be stated as such: 15% + 12.4% = 27.4%
for those who pay is taken out weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly.
That money should be dedicated to that particular usage, retirement, but it is not. It is sad that my good friend has sold out, and bought into the creative financing that was invented by this government. This is also why I always refer to GAP, or general accounting principals in my posts. That is something this Government gave up long ago, yet.. to the private business person could land them in prison.

If you want to call it "balancing", and creating a surplus by spending earmarked retirement money today, then by all means, do so.
But, all that really shows is your accounting is no better than this government, which is a fraud.

Apollo wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:46 AM:Re: Focal Point (7:25 a.m.)
Not sure what point Focal is trying to make here.
The expenses for the Vietnam War buildup were during during the LBJ administration, along with the enormous costs of the Apollo moon landing program and an effort to start a "war on poverty" that would be eviscerated when the Republicans began their domination of government from 1969 to the present.
Reagan's wasted money for "Star Wars" and vast military buildup during peace time (translation: corporate welfare for defense contractors feeding at the public trough), were emblematic of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. The two huge bank bailouts, during the terms of Reagan and the current Bush, which again focused on corporate welfare for banks (corporations) rather than individual assistance to borrowers, again demonstrate the failure and economic collapse of those who want to deregulate public policies while micromanaging your personal choices.

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:57 AM:I see, my good buddy "Wizzer" @4:52 AM has begun to take an interest in the National debt, historically speaking.

Perhaps my good friend could reconcile for us the differences between what OMB has stated about "balance", and what the Tresury, I re-state.. the Rubin Tresury numbers show?
When you look at the numbers, each and every year the National debt goes up, supposedly with "balanced budgets", as stated by my good buddy.
Now, how can this be? If the budget is balanced, then no deficit occurs, and hence no adding to the debt. It's really pretty simple mathmatics.

Just to give a taste:
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

You see no pay down, or pay off of debt, you see rising debt, each year.
Now how can this be if we had surpluses as far as the eye could see?

I know that in my own finances, whenever I get a surplus, I plunk that extra money down onto a long term debt, like my house, or a car, or put it into my retirement.
This NEVER happened, yet the mythology persists that we had surpluses.
That's because it is a myth, smoke & mirrors, it never happened.
Another Aurther Anderson type of book cooking enterprise that our children will pay for.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:07 AM:Those darn liberals! I just hates em!

Just Asking wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:09 AM:Has anyone noticed the dearth of claims about Global Whatever on this Blog?

Has it been beaten to death, or has everyone accepted it as Gospel, or is it being held in abeyance until measurements confirm or deny its existence? Was it overtaken by almost $5 gasoline? Did the voters deliver a crushing answer during the Congressional recess?

Whatever the answer, we are better off for its absence.

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:11 AM:Well, "Chris to Alf" at 8:25AM,
you said "Our military brass trashed the Geneva conventions with the blessing of Bush and the corrupt American people.", you are wrong.
It was GWB and The Cheney Branch that issued the orders to set up Gitmo AS IT IS and it was GWB and The Cheney Branch that issued the orders to violate our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and international law, especially with their "enemy combatant" designation crap and torture and no habeas corpus!
Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:20 AM:The posts from "Ron" (8:44 and 8:57am) continue his usual shell game.
Again, the actual U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WEBSITES for the budget and national debt figures are:
Budget deficits/surplus (both on-budget and off-budget items):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
Total of National Debt per year:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
"Ron" must have gotten so excited that he did not read my post very carefully. No, that can't be it, because we have had this same conversation before, so he knows the truth, but it just going to make up his own "facts" anyway!
He cites some instances where the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) shows a budget surplus, yet the annualized history of the national debt shows an increase in indebtedness and asks ME to explain this. Well, "Ron," I did not compile these, your buddies in the Bush administration did, so maybe you should ask them what is going on. But, no, I'll help you out, yet again!
As I have explained before, and as is clearly noted in the webpage notes, the national debt includes the FACE VALUE of bonded indebtendess. Please note, as I have explained before, this is not the actual amount we owe. If we were to pay off liquidated bonds today, we would not pay the face value, but the net present value. This is the same as looking at your mortgage, as saying you owe a million dollars on a $500,000 home loan, because that is the total of payments over the 30 year life of the laon. But if you pay it off today, you will only pay the net present value of the payoff balance, which is $500,000.
I think I have figured out why Republicans like "Ron" are such terrible fiscal mis-managers: it is because they don't understand the most fundamental basics of accounting and financial management!
Either that or they're lying to us as they use inflation, government sweetheart contracts as corporate welfare, and high prices for their Big Oil and Big Pharma Buddies to transfer our productivity to their products.
Either way, it results in a few people cashing in and most of the rest of us facing economic devastation.
Which side is "Ron" on?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Oh Yeah wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:23 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:34 AM: There are no liberals in Russia.

Heres to Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:24 AM:As a lifelong liberal, I must say that I enjoy Chuck's posts more than anyone else's. Where but in Chuck do liberals enjoy so much power? Whenever we lose yet another election, I know I can come back to the NCT blogsphere and read Chuck and learn that we liberals are the cause of everything that happens in the world. It's positively rejuvenating. It's like doing a performance-enhancing steroid. I read Chuck and I feel my strength growing beyond the imaginable...kinda like the Hulk. Thanks, Chuck.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:27 AM:Apollo[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:46 AM: I was just addressing the fact that MF neglected to factor all the expenses. I was not addressing responsibilities. I suppose that I should have just said that MF was selective in his statistics.

nate wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:50 AM:chuck, just who are these liberals that you despise so much??? I mean I lean more toward the left than right but when saying liberals do you mean hippies, democrats, independents,or people who think differenty than you, please can you clear this up for us all.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:53 AM:Murel Fisk and John McCain: John talks and refers to Vietnam often.McCain does so because psychological he is still there.
I suggest that he sees, interprets and will take action predicated upon that perception.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:06 AM:Todays headles include: Stocks fall on inflation jump, worries about economy.
80% of Americans favor drilling in order to save their job and combat inflation, yet Hussein, Pelosi and Reid give us the middle finger on drilling, and Americans will return the favor in November and Hussein will have to change his name to Mike Dukakis Hussein.

Greenergy wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:12 AM:Just Asking at 9:09 a.m. is asking for it, all right.
Actually, no one has accepted the scientific consensus on climate change as "gospel," but anyone who is the least bit scientifically literate has accepted it as SCIENCE.
Gospel means you take it as an article of religious faith.
Science means you accept something based on peer-reviewed expertise of UNBIASED researchers based on replicable, observable and quantifiable data.

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:17 AM:>>>The accounting scheme, and that's truly what it is, are a thing that should rightly be compared to "Arthur Andersen/Enron" accounting techniques>>>

The fact remains that had the government just arrested the executives involved in the scandal and left Enron and WorldComm alone, and called of the heard of lawyers and receivers, those 2 companies may well be operating very profitably today, with thousands more employed, and pension saved. Government overzealousness was an additional culprit in those 2 deals, and the only ones who made out were the lawyers and receivers, who made $hundreds of millions, while decimating pension funds for thousands

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:46 AM:Actually, "Greenergy" @10:12 AM...

The Left HAS accepted the scientific consensus on climate change as "gospel."

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.

Science does not complete the scientific linkage on climate change, therefore,
a leap of faith must be taken, for it is by those things not yet proven, but strongly believed.

Hence, we are told, we must act now, even though the science is not complete.

Kind of like, taxing ourselves into prosperity.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:55 AM:The posts from "Ron" (8:44 and 8:57am) continue his usual shell game.
Again, the actual U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WEBSITES for the budget and national debt figures are:
Budget deficits/surplus (both on-budget and off-budget items):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
Total of National Debt per year:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
"Ron" must have gotten so excited that he did not read my post very carefully. No, that can't be it, because we have had this same conversation before, so he knows the truth, but it just going to make up his own "facts" anyway!
He cites some instances where the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) shows a budget surplus, yet the annualized history of the national debt shows an increase in indebtedness and asks ME to explain this. Well, "Ron," I did not compile these, your buddies in the Bush administration did, so maybe you should ask them what is going on. But, no, I'll help you out, yet again!
As I have explained before, and as is clearly noted in the webpage notes, the national debt includes the FACE VALUE of bonded indebtendess. Please note, as I have explained before, this is not the actual amount we owe. If we were to pay off liquidated bonds today, we would not pay the face value, but the net present value. This is the same as looking at your mortgage, as saying you owe a million dollars on a $500,000 home loan, because that is the total of payments over the 30 year life of the laon. But if you pay it off today, you will only pay the net present value of the payoff balance, which is $500,000.
I think I have figured out why Republicans like "Ron" are such terrible fiscal mis-managers: it is because they don't understand the most fundamental basics of accounting and financial management!
Either that or they're lying to us as they use inflation, government sweetheart contracts as corporate welfare, and high prices for their Big Oil and Big Pharma Buddies to transfer our productivity to their products.
Either way, it results in a few people cashing in and most of the rest of us facing economic devastation.
Which side is "Ron" on?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Post 9:20am -- re-post 10:55am

It is getting to be real clear to many here how the process of submitting posts here works:
1. "Ron" submits a post. No matter what time of the day or night, it gets processed almost immediately.
2. As with my post last night and this morning, someone posts a reply to "Ron," but the processing of posts closes down for several hours, especially for any post that might respond with facts and references to "Ron," who needs to be protected at all costs, although other posts, submitted later, get processed out or sequence if they don't put precious "Ron" at risk of having his factual errors exposed.
Note to editor: if you don't want people to answer "Ron's" so-called "question," then don't post them in the first place. But please do not insult the intelligence of your readers by censoring responses that cite specific factual sources. There is no reason for this post to be delayed or omitted.

Floyd wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:00 AM:Actually, thanks to a variety of blog posts from DD Wiz and Greenergy and others, we've pretty conclusively determined that the Global Cooling / Warming / Stagnation controversy was just a political ploy by a bunch of wild-eyed extremists seeking to raise taxes and lower the quality of life. Not to worry, though, because somebody somewhere is feverishly concocting yet another global crisis that will hit us all "in ten years" (its always in ten years) unless everybody starts to suffer RIGHT NOW! It's just a matter of time.

chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:20 AM:>>>I read Chuck and I feel my strength growing beyond the imaginable>>>> Thats what they all say, and no I wont go out on a date with you, so dont ask. Just keep drooling

to DDWiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:38 AM:I'm glad you continue to spank Ron on a regular basis. It must be frustrating for you, but as we all know here, Ron is the ultimate partisan. He could reverse all his arguments in a second if the Republican and Democratic Parties switched sides. I know he considers this blog some kind of debate with you but, lets face it, that's like comparing an elephant gun (you) to a pea-shooter (Ron).

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:44 AM:The post from "DD Wiz" (me!) (9:20am) was posted delayed and processed long after many later posts, as often happens (seeming especially in response to the many and lengthy posts from "Ron").
It includes extensive specific documentation and explanation to address the factual fictions and fabrication he simply made up out of thin air (or "borrowed" from others who di) in his posts at 8:44 and 8:57am).
If you have any confusion about debts, deficits and budgets, please go back and look at my 9:20am post.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:52 AM:Well, "Chris to Alf" at 8:25AM,
who is the commander-in-chief of the military of this country?
GWB.
Who came up with the term "enemy combatant"?
GWB and/or The Cheney Branch.
Why was that term created?
Specifically to circumvent the United States Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and International law by making some people into "un-persons".
Who authorized torture in Guantanamo?
GWB.
Who lied to the American People about torture at Guantanamo?
GWB.
You say "Our military brass trashed the Geneva conventions with the blessing of Bush and the corrupt American people. "
You are wrong on several accounts.
1) Our military brass trashed the Geneva conventions at the specific behest of GWB and The Cheney Branch, not simply with their nod.
2) DO NOT EVER lump me in this group you call "the corrupt American people".
3) Your wholesale condemnation of an entire organization called the military is downright wrong.
Finally, I can not think of very many things more barbaric than war.
AND NO, not one person that I know personally was in favor of invading Iraq when it happened and even fewer are in favor of remaining there.
There are some of us who see and saw through the lies.
Regards, Alf.

chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:09 PM:The news is reporting that Iran's satellite launch was a 'dramatic failure'. That will have Chris in a deep depression for a few days

minorities become majority wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:10 PM:Excerpt: Minorities May Be the Majority
New York Times, by Sam Roberts, 8-19-08.

"Ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s
population in a little more than a generation, according to new Census
Bureau projections, a transformation that is occurring faster than
anticipated just a few years ago."

"The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as
Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago,
officials had projected the shift would come in 2050."

"The main reason for the accelerating change is significantly higher
birthrates among immigrants. Another factor is the influx of foreigners,
rising from about 1.3 million annually today to more than 2 million a year
by midcentury, according to projections based on current immigration
policies."

TRI-City - YES wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:13 PM:TRI-City --- Vote YES

Have you or family or friend, ever needed a hospital when you were out-of-town?

Having Hospitals that will admit all is important.

Usually service is available 24 hrs every day.

Every Community needs a nearby hospital, firehouse, police station. These nearby working Public Health and Safety professionals are necessary. Most of these services are expensive.

Someone needs help every day.

When disaster strikes, the horrific emergency will impact all of us.

TRI-City - Vote YES

All politics is local wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:18 PM:yet, you fools, who are more interested in petty arguments over national politics, and making a (screen name) for yourselves, miss the issues of most immediate concern to everyday people.

Why all the discussion on McCain or Obama? Despite what you claim, none of you know anything of substance about either. You pretend to be stalward party ideologs, yet probably not one of you can name your party's county chairperson, have become personally involved in a campaign, nor made a donation of a single penny to their candidacy.

Yet, more pressing issues like Prop A, you ignore, because it doesn't have the glimmer and glitz of national politics.

Get real, and get on task.

You guys are pathetic!

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:22 PM:Schools opens next monday for the kiddies, which means public school copiers are now working overtime to be sure there are enough SB777 compliant gender selection forms, abortion request forms and diversity class enrollment forms. There will be no forms to enroll in the math, literature, history, english or physical science classes. That can be handled next year, or the year after

Chuck wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:34 PM:Here's a headline that will have Chris dancing in the streets "Afghan insurgents kill 10 troops as bombers storm U.S. base". I wonder how many of the Marines who shot back will be arrested and chained up when Murtha gets ahold of the story

Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:37 PM:All those that said Iraq was a dumb idea look even more silly now.

A few weeks back, I praised the war as a victory since we would now have bases in Iraq. I was hotly debated by those who said we didnt need them. We had already had them in Pakistan they claimed.

Given that were about to lose that ally to radicals, the win in Iraq is now bigger than ever.Those airfields will be useful in winning the war that liberals claim to support.

Afghanistan.

Fighting the war without those strategic airfileds would have been much more difficult.

But now that we have airfileds in Iraq it will be much more achievable.

Oh Floyd wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:08 PM:You seem to think that Climate Change is an event. It's not. It's a phenomenon that is helping to bring about many events. Some of the catastrophic predictions are for the future (always ten years?). But many events are happening that are partially caused by that warming trend. It's not like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption where suddenly everyone will say, "Oh my gosh, they were right!" It's already happening all around us while people like you are waiting to see if there's some big explosion or something.

To DD Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:30 PM:Economics is called the "Dismal Science" for a reason!

The closer an economics discussion is to the reader the more important, but there is NOTHING so boring as historical discussions of past budgets or national debt.

Absolutely NOTHING! (O.K. historical discussions of political ills and indiscretions comes close.)

I do not skip any posters, but I will skip arcane subject matter.

Chris to Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:41 PM:Did I say anything about Gitmo? No. As I said the military decides how to conduct the war. I suppose that Truman or Eisenhower told our military to just kill all those refugees too in Korea. No, that was a military decision. Let's stick with what I say. One of the reasons I don't get into it with Bill is because he doesn't address what I say and tries to put some other issues into the blog in order to try to prove that what "I" said was wrong. As I said our military cares nothing about the bloody mess they make, only getting the job done. Read the book I was talking about. "Bleeding Afghanistan". Now as I said this book only confirms what I already knew. But as I said the real reason, even though you will deny it, is that I think you don't want to blame the military for anything because after all they are one of our sacred cows.

To Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:05 PM:Obsession!

Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:10 PM:Alf shouldnt talk about legal matters.

The Geneva Convention applies to countries that signed on agreeing to its rules. Al Qaeda is not a country that signed on and therefore has no right to Habeus Corpus. The US Constitution doesnt mention this in any way either. Nowhere does it grant POWs these rights.

Your claim that this is an attempt to define some as "unpersons" is nonsense and has no basis in law. This is how it has been since the beginning.

You show your ignorance with comments like that.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:27 PM:The post from "All politics is local" (12:18pm) joins the many others here who think they know everything about other participants here and jump to conclusions and, not surprisingly, are wrong.
I not only know who my county chair is, I (as has Mrs. Wiz) served 5 years on the county central committee of my party, and 5 years on the state central committee. Mrs. Wiz, a CPA who was at that time a corporate accountant (now in real estate) was also treasurer of the county for 2 years during the 1990s.
Not only that, but I know for a fact that several other participants here who shall remain unnamed are very active in official party activities and, yes, all of us do know who the key players in our party are.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:31 PM:Well, "All politics is local" at 12:18PM,
do you feel better now?
Will "local politics" solve the influx of illegal immigrants who are overloading our resources, including Tri-City?
Will "local politics" significantly change our involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan and possibly Iran), that has caused the deaths of LOCAL young men and women?
Will "local politics" solve our water situation?
Will "local politics" solve our energy problem?
Yes they will, BUT
ONLY on a VERY SMALL scale.
NOT in any sort of meaningful way.
This morning I sent an email to the governor,
who is not a LOCAL politician,
regarding our water problem.
Why?
Because our water problem is FAR MORE THAN A LOCAL problem.
I also contacted our LOCAL water department and, yes, they are still issuing NEW water meters which ADD to the demand for water, something that we are supposed to be conserving, under threat from the state.
Regards, Alf.

Reporter wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:39 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:37 PM:

Bases? Does the United States have a signed treaty and or status of forces agreement with Iraq?

When does the Untied Nations mandate expire?

Where is the United States going to get the capital or credit to continue these wars?

What country or countries are the aircraft are going to fly over to get to Afghanistan?

Have the political goals of the surge been accomplished?

What makes you authority on this war?

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:56 PM:Whether it was with you or not, "Bill" at 2:10PM, this issue has already been discussed.
The Geneva Conventions became part of American Law when we became signatories.
The Geneva Conventions and American Law do not get thrown out the window when we are dealing with a non-signatory, despite what barbarians like GWB, et al, would have you believe.
When GWB and The Cheney Branch came up with the term "enemy combatant",
it was specifically to get around all the legal requirements for treatment of citizens POWs, etc.,
to create a class of person the treatment of whom no inconvenient rules apply, no inconvenient Geneva Conventions, no inconvenient laws, no inconvenient Constitution, no inconvenient habeas corpus.
If you want the ultimate barbarians and anarchists, look no further than the executive branch(es) and if you condone such attitudes or conduct, look no further than yourself.
Do you believe that a murderer is not a murderer if he does not get caught?
What happened to being an honorable nation and an honorable People?
Regards, Alf.

Oh Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:08 PM:We know that Bush WANTED Iraq to be the US's very own base of military operations. He demanded that Iraq allow us more than 50 bases. He demanded that Iraq allow the US to conduct any military operation it wishes from these bases without needing to even check with the Iraqi government. He demanded that all US military and "contractor" personnel be immune from Iraqi law. In other words, Bush demanded all the things from sovereign Iraq that make Bill drool. But incredibly, the people AND the government of Iraq said "No". Ooops, there goes yet another of Bush's justifications for this immoral, illegal invasion and occupation. I wonder how people like Bill have, over the recent years, heard one "reason" after another for the invasion and occupation, each prior one going by the wayside, and still sit there cheering their hero Commander-in-Chief. Sorry Bill, it's still you and your few compadres that look the fools. Nothing Bush can do will change that. The war was a violation of international law. It produced thousands of dead bodies. It destroyed the infrastructure of a nation, so that its people (whom we called the "victims" of Saddam) will go on suffering for decades. The archeological story of a great ancient culture has been destroyed forever. It created thousands of converts to radical Islam. It turned our allies into bystanders, as one after another of the national leaders that signed on with your hero has been voted out of office. Against all this and all the lies of the Bush administration, you say, "We have an air base, and it's all vindicated, and Bush was right"? Bill, seriously, are you mad?

Lets hope wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:12 PM:Since Bill is such a fan of the great political, legal, and military mind of George W Bush, I'm sure Bill will join me in hoping and praying that at some point Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and Rumsfeld (among others) will be brought before a court or tribunal, under oath, and allowed to testify in detail about every aspect of the Iraq planning and conduct, as well as every aspect of our policies towards detainees, including renditions. Bill will puff with pride as his heroes describe their actions, while the rest of us sigh in relief as these same great people are carted off to prison.

snerd wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:16 PM:But do we want to be a country that tortures? Really? Do we want to be a country that lies about torture? The "patriots" on this blog claim that America is the greatest country in the world. Should the greatest act as though it is the most squalid? The immorality of the Bush Admin. to try to obfuscate the meaning of torture is reflected in all their other outright lies and obfuscations. The reflection of torture glistens on all of them and on all their lies.

TriCity- NO NO wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:35 PM:Measure A is not necessary at all - Yeah... finally someone read the TriCity brochure.

I looked at the expensive fliers TriCity sent me, it did state that it can service the 3 cities. Let's limit access to out of the area visitors or ask them to pay for the construction costs. It's only right. No one gets a free ride.

TriCity is standing and profitable,how can they keep the profit and tax the innocents?? Do a phased construction. A good hospital is nice but a 40 year tax for an empty promise is corruption. Big NO on A. Like one of the letters suggested, let's read the fine print.

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:39 PM:Always the kidder, are ya "Wizzer"
@9:20 AM?

And we get.. yet AGAIN another scenario, the old Face Value vs. the present value argument.

Now, wiz... in what year did this government ever pay off a debt? As to correctly value any debt to present day value? Can you tell me that?
Either face value, or present value? You name the date, and I'll be happy to look it up.

The point is, that Rubin.. that would be Clinton's Treasury Sec. posted the numbers I just gave you. Those ARE the numbers, from the Clinton Administation.
Now, unless your telling me, they paid off all that old debt, and this is new debt aquired by GWB, then I ask you, when & where did they pay it down?

Oh, sure. I fully understand that if I chose today to pay off any long term debt, I would not be subject to the interest in the out lying years.
But.. you have to pay it off First, Wizzer. You can't just claim, that's what I owe. Unless you intend to pay it off today, then you can claim that. However, if you intend to ride out the 20-30 years, you must show the interest, and ALL other costs associated with the value of that particular debt, or indebtness. That's GAAP. In private business, you could find yourself in prison, with Bubba, if you don't follow these rules.
So, once again...
Where, and when did the Clinton Administration ever paid a dime towards the debt? And further, how does the debt keep rising, when you have a surplus? In several years, no less?
That's what you keep telling us, but the numbers just don't seem to jive, now.. do they?

But, let me cut to the chase here, as I always do.

Why would you note on your books just the present day value, when the real cost of the note is Face value?
If you dont intend to pay the note off this year, why would you state it in terms that make your books appear to have fewer liabilities? If the out year liabilities are, in fact, the real pay off, then present value is meaningless.
Oh, sure, I get that for today, it'll show you don't owe as much, but that really is a shell game, cause you never intend to pay off today, but.. 30 plus years from now, after all the interest.
That's the real liability, not present value.
Like I said, smoke & mirrors folks, smoke & mirrors.

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:47 PM:I don't really pay much attention to whiners. They really are sort of.. I don't know... what's the right word here? Kind of.. Liberal, the only thing I can come up with, right now.
But, have you noticed?

The ONLY people whining about not getting posted, are the Lib's?
I think this is right. As I can recall, I have not seen Chuck, nor SDRaoul, or hardtack, or Karl, or Reardon, or anyone else remotely conservative complain about not getting a post, posted.
Have you? I know I certainly don't complain about it, I just post another. And if that don't get posted, I try again, then again. Sometimes, I'll post 5 different times, and not see a one.
You dont' hear me crying in my beer about it. I just keep on plugging away.
Just an observation, from an observer of people. That's all.
It's also kind of funny, ya know?
Those very same people are the one's who say they believe in peer-review. And when a gatekeeping reviewer doesn't post their stuff, they go nuts.
Why is that? Do I really have to give another educational seminar on peer-review?

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:54 PM:If the budget is balanced, and we have surplus, then no deficit occurs, and hence no adding to the debt. It's really pretty simple mathmatics.

Just to give a taste, these are the Rubin Treasury numbers on the National Debt during the Clinton years:

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm


You see no pay down, or pay off of debt, you see rising debt, each & every single year.
Now how can this be if we had surpluses as far as the eye could see?

I know that in my own finances, whenever I get a surplus, I plunk that extra money down onto a long term debt, like my house, or a car, or put it into my retirement. This makes my out years look better, I show less total indebtedness. But, not here, we show more, in each year. Now.. HOW can this be? If I have a surplus (that means extra money for the public school educated) then where did I spend the surplus? Did I bank it? Did I pay something down? Or did I just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Yes, Johnnie.. door number three: Titanic.
IT NEVER happened, yet the mythology persists that we had surpluses.
That's because it is a myth, smoke & mirrors, it never happened.
Another Aurther Anderson type of book cooking enterprise that our children will pay for.

Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:09 PM:Best lines of the night, according to me...

McCain spoke about Christmas in a Vietnamese prison, and about a guard who snuck in at night to loosen the ropes that bound McCain, and then snuck in in the morning to tighten them before other guards could notice.
The guard said nothing while performing this kindness, but one time, in the yard, "I became aware of him as he walked near me and then, for a moment, stood very close to me. He did not speak or smile or look at me. He just stared at the ground and then, very casually, he used his foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We both stood looking at his work for a minute until he rubbed it out and walked away."

Two men, two soldiers, two human beings.
What a great story!

To Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:12 PM:You'd better hope we don't lose Pakistan as an ally, since they possess nuclear weapons with our consent.

Sorry Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:17 PM:McCain borrowed that story from someone else. It didn't happen to him. Google it. How heartwarming. Puke.

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:28 PM:Well, "Ron" at 4:09PM,
I like the line "Two men, two soldiers, two human beings.".
Is this the same McGWB who is FOR TORTURE,
FOR reducing both the prisoner and the torturer to sub-human status?
OOPS, I forgot, IT must be called the "detainee" or the "enemy combatant", so as not to afford that person even the status as a prisoner because a prisoner during a war is a P.O.W. and must be treated as a human being.
Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:42 PM:Re: Ron (3:39 and 3:54 p.m.)
Objection, your honor!
The question has been asked and answered. Please see the posts from DDWIZ at (9:20 and 10:55 a.m.).
And the rather feeble attempt to address this would be hilarious if we didn't know Ron actually thought there would be real human beings who suckered for it.
As for Ron's snickering about whiners, of course he has nothing to whine about if he gets favored treatment.
And he still seems utterly incapable of grasping the difference between scientific and academic peer review by qualified experts and the gatekeeping censor protecting the sensibilities of readers on a local blog.
Or, possibly worse, as WIZ noted, maybe he does know the differences but benefits from keeping others in ignorance.

Alf wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:44 PM:Ya know, "To Bill" at 4:12PM,
you hit upon something that has bugged me for a long time.
You used the phrase "with our consent".
I'm picking on the phrase here, not you.
Far too many people in the U.S. are arrogant enough, have enough gall to believe that it is our place to give "consent" to what another sovereign nation does or does not do.
Would these same people tolerate another nation who believes that it is their right to give or withhold their consent to what we do or don't do?
Regards, Alf.

Consent wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:55 PM:Alf is exactly right about the presumptuous arrogance of some Americans regarding the sovereignty (and even the humanity) of people elsewhere. Remember when Colin Powell said (and many here on this space repeated) "We broke it, we own it"? Well, sorry, but even though we broke it, we never did and never will "own" Iraq. We created an insurgency that wreaked havoc on that country with our attitudes. Now we've been told to leave ASAP. In many nations where there are US bases arranged with their "leaders" (via bribes or threats), the local populace despises our presence as we would if we were in their shoes. We insist that it's not the same, that these are AMERICANS on their land, implying that we are, of course, welcome and loved. More nonsense. We might recall, for example, that 911 was a product of, among other reasons, US military presence in Saudi Arabia. If we are morally and politically special, it will be because we behave that way, not just because we say so. Under Bush, we've learned this lesson as never before.

to Sorry Ron wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:00 PM:Can you tell me where I can find that this story about the cross in the dirt actually happened to someone else?

Oh Please wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:07 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:47 PM:How can co