finally
 

Some non-hackery from Alan Greenspan:

• "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday, for the first time explicitly, that he expects tax increases to be part of any eventual agreement to reduce the federal budget deficit. Greenspan... also acknowledged that his support for tax cuts in early 2001... led to policies that helped swing the federal budget from surplus to deficits.... Greenspan reminded lawmakers that government economists at the time predicted budget surpluses 'as far as the eye can see.' Yet Greenspan had warned then in congressional testimony that the forecasts might be wrong, and he recommended some 'trigger' mechanism that would limit the tax cuts if certain budget targets were not met. Greenspan said he thinks 'it's frankly unfair' for critics to blame him now for the fact that Congress chose to 'read half [his] testimony and discard the rest.'
  
  Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) said he believed it was 'fair to consider how your message would be taken' and that lawmakers saw Greenspan's 2001 remarks as 'providing a green light' for tax cuts, which were enacted without triggers.
  
  'I plead guilty to that,' Greenspan said. 'If indeed that is the way it was interpreted, I missed it. In other words, I did not intend it that way.'... 'The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years,' Greenspan said in his prepared testimony yesterday.... The Fed chief called for 'major deficit-reducing actions' and proposed several procedural steps Congress could implement to restrain the deficit's growth. Greenspan has frequently said he would prefer the deficit be shrunk as much as possible through spending cuts.... But he also implied that reaching a bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit will require some compromises, saying, 'We can raise taxes, and I don't deny we probably at the end of the day will do them [tax increases] in order to get an ultimate resolution of this.'

finally
 

This is the part of his speech that needs to be focused on.

finally
 

And in mid-"war," what spending would you propose be cut?

Taiwan
 

You're saying this 'cause Bush is a big respector of treaties?

Taiwan
 

Oddly, I agree.

strategic bombing
 

So much for your credibility on political issues...

I take it that those two sentences are meant to be unrelated?

The UN was intended as an alternative to, and means to prevent, war. It has worked at times and not worked at others. But it was certainly at least a factor in keeping the cold war largely cold.

Despite conservative American paranoia, it isn't world government. And to the extent that it has the ability to evolve into it, it will be based on consent (e.g. the international criminal court).

The word never is a tricky one.

But so is the word "sovereignty." There are lots of things about which nations may agree that it is in their interest to submit to an international body (see, e.g. the maritime treaties and the WTO).

But I agree that the current form of the UN is unlikely to get the U.S. support needed to progress. I disagree, however, that Bolton and Bush possess any sort of vision for a future, more effective or meaningful UN.

finally
 

We should ignore the part where he says "'We can raise taxes, and I don't deny we probably at the end of the day will do them [tax increases]"??

Should we also ignore his view that there should not be any tax cuts unless spending is also cut, and that tax cuts should have triggers so that they are revoked if spending is not also cut or revenues don't rise?

Yeah, you probably think we should ignore all of that -- after all, that's what the Rs have been doing ever since the Clinton era of fiscal prudence ended.

iron-cage match
 

From a recent poll, via Julie Saltman:

Discuss.

iron-cage match
 

A Republican Bill Clinton would probably poll even higher.

etft -- t.s.

iron-cage match
 

you really need to vary your reading- no seriously, post the questions over at DU just dso we can get a second on the results, okay?

etft -- t.s.

Without that Amendment Reagan would have been president until he was drooling out of a cup. And Clinton would have never moved past governor of Arkansas

Until?

really? You think he would have been out in 1985? I don't think the polls are with you....

I'm not so sure about that -- people now tend to forget how badly Iran-Contra hurt him after 1986.

Assuming, that is, that the Donkeys put up someone other than Michael "I'd rather be a emotionless robot than president" Dukakis as the nominee in 1988. Can you imagine the campaign? Even a non-pro like me can put together commercials showing clips of Reagan saying things like "in my heart, I know we didn't deal with terrorists" interspersed with clips of ayatollahs burning American flags. And maybe a dramatic reinactment of Bud MacFarlane handing the Iranians a cake and a Bible.