State of the Union, 2003

[Timebuilder]

dms, you have given me a lot of great opportunities to spend more time in front of my computer today than I have planned. I will bypass the anti-nuclear alarmism, and go right to the "terrorism" portion of your post.

It is interesting (and somewhat disturbing) to see what can pass for professional journalism at the Washington post. From this assembled stack of notes which is passed off as an article, there are some "quotables".

"President Clinton ordered two attack submarines to stand watch over the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorists. Bush ordered the subs to stand down.

This one is actually funny. Clinton never ordered attack submarines to place themselves "on station". He was told in a briefing that this is what his intelligence agancies had done. Conversely, Bush was counciled that they were not of value in that position, and that other means of intelligence gathering had made them unecessary for that purpose. If you leave out the important parts of this scenario, it makes it appear that Clinton heroically took an active role in the hunt for Bin Laden, and Bush was somehow lax in his duties, when in reality Clinbton was interested in making a legacy as the American President who helped bring peace to the middle east.

The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996.

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries.

In other words, the boundaries established by military planners during the Clinton administration continued because we did not have evidence of a credible threat until September 11th, right? Yep.

More than once, advisers recall, Clinton sounded out Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the prospect of using Special Forces to surprise bin Laden's fighters on the ground. But Clinton declined to authorize the large-scale operation that Shelton said would be required, and he chose not to order a less ambitious option to which the general would have objected.

In other words, Clinton ignored Shelton's professional advice regarding what was needed to stop Bin Laden.

Though his government came to believe that the Taliban was inextricably tied to bin Laden, Clinton never seriously entertained the use of military force against the Islamic fundamentalist regime, still less the kind of broad campaign that removed the Taliban from power 10 days ago.

At least twice, Clinton dispatched senior emissaries to the Taliban with threats no less stark than the formula Bush laid out in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20. Bin Laden, they said, was an enemy of the United States, and a regime that provided him sanctuary should be prepared for the consequences.

This is key: Clinton dispatched emissaries. Bush dispatched action. The writer is attempting to paint Clinton's actions as being equivalent to Bush's actions. Oh, what a tangled web we weave!

Clinton administration officials believed the Taliban would interpret the warning as a military threat.

Clinton threatened, but failed to back up his threats.

There is, even now, no satisfying answer to the central mystery of the Clinton administration's covert war. How is it possible that the president had intelligence good enough to launch missiles at bin Laden within 13 days of the embassy bombings, yet never had it again? Did the intelligence task grow that much harder, or did the president and his national security apparatus grow less tolerant of risk?

Clinton was busily engaged in trying to rebuild his legacy, attempting vainly to become remembered for something other than being a philandering fool. A war would be unpopular with his party and hollywood supporters, people like Susan Sarandon and Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's (great ice cream, silly political ideas). Clinton wanted to provide a leagacy of Mideast peace, something even the Bible does not speak of until Christ returns after the Tribulation. Sadly, this is indicative of where Clinton's ego places him on the scale of God and Man.

It was easy for this Post writer to try and assemble this pile of notes into an article full of implication and assumption. I'm not buying his attempt.

 

[dmspilot00]

I realize that Yucca and hydrogen cars really have nothing to do with each other. The only thing I'm saying is: you people (to quote someone's response to my post) are "smoking crack" if you think Bush suddenly cares about the environment. I brought up Yucca Mt. because I was disturbed to see shipments of radioactive material going on right in the middle of morning rush hour.

I don't remember the details, but one plan for the waste involved burrying containers in the floor of the ocean, where they would leach deep into the ground and make their way to the Earth's core (a gross simplification; there was an entire website devoted to explaining this idea but I don't remember where it was). Even if that plan would have turned out not feasable, I don't believe that putting the stuff in an earthquake area in a volcano is a very bright idea, not to mention that it is on the total opposite side of the country as where most of the nuclear waste is already located.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate about the nuclear waste thing, I only mentioned it as a sidebar.

I'm not going to respond to the terrorism issue because those were the W. Post's words, not mine. If there are errors in their logic then you're right, it is a shame they made it to that paper.

So, what is behind this quest for a hydrogen car? Did you know that the money for the research is coming from the cancellation of projects that involve developing "80-mile- per-gallon" cars (which would only be a few years away), and because hydrogen powered cars for the masses are estimated to be some 20 years from being a reality, the decision "will delay the nation's freedom from foreign oil for years, fans and critics of the move agreed" (italics added).

Other quotes:

' "There is a continuous ploy by the car companies to create a vehicle that's just beyond the reach of technology," said Frank, a researcher and proponent of hybrid vehicles, which have both a gasoline engine and an electric motor. "They say, 'Just leave us alone and we'll make great cars,' and the administration has fallen for it."

Just as they did with the electric car, Frank predicted, automakers eventually will declare the hydrogen-powered vehicle impractical.

"They'll stop it and they'll say it's because it costs too much to produce and it isn't competitive with the gas-powered car," he said. "I guarantee it." '

Source: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=6551

So, why can't we have both programs, with reduced funding for each? Or, better yet, why shouldn't the car companies fund the research themselves, and the government can instead "award" them financially once they actually come up with something? If we can double gas mileage now, that means we need half of the oil that we currently need, and half is still a pretty significant amount.

Also, most of you seem to have forgotten that Honda has already been developing hydrogen powered cars for awhile now.

 

[larry]

Since preemptive strikes are ok….

I’ve started punching people in the street that look like they might say something or do something nasty later on. Better to preempt the potential jerk with a punch in the nose than let him be a jerk later. I think its a good system. Watch out fellows, you could be next, but only if you were probably going to be a jerk.

Just last night I kicked my dog as a preemptive strike. He was thinking about drinking out of the toilet. I thought, "better preempt that with a kick in the butt."

 

[Timebuilder]

After broadcasting, and before pursuing flying, I repaired cars and trucks, from the smallest MG to the largest big rig. You'd be shocked at the amount of radioactive material that is transported EVERY DAY in America, and there is rarely an accident that results in any kind of release into the evironment. Stats about one vehilcle every few hours are more for shock value than anything else. If you include all radiological shipments, it's more like one every few minutes. The entire earth is an earthquake zone. Dealing with nuclear waste is a balance of several concerns, and decisions are based on the knowelge of the industry, which is considerable. When something better comes along, it will be tried.

Also from my repair (and sometimes "redesign") background, I can tell you that the manufacturers are the folks that MUST be in charge of the progression of vehicle types, just as NASA should be in charge of space exploration. They're the experts.

The manufacturers operate in an environment of capitalism. They have many people to satisfy: the government, the consumer, the production engineer, the insurance institute, etc. This is a big job. While the 80 mpg vehicle might be produced in ten years from an engineering standpoint, it may not be practical enough to be viable in the marketplace.

The hydrogen car design is a look ahead, which is always how we progress in this world, by constantly raising our sights. After we stabilize hydrogen for handling, the design can rest on much of what has already been done to further the idea of the electric car. If you produce power from hydrogen, for instance, you have solved the battery and the recharging problems, and retained the convenience and turn around time of a conventional fill-up at the gas station (which would really be a "gas" station, finally!). This is a VERY good goal for the auto industry.

Just as they did with the electric car, Frank predicted, automakers eventually will declare the hydrogen-powered vehicle impractical.

Impractical now? Certainly. Frank is a well known "naysayer".

Also, most of you seem to have forgotten that Honda has already been developing hydrogen powered cars for awhile now.

I haven't forgotten. Honda and Toyota make the cleanest, most efficient cars on the market. I can't wait to see what Toyota will do when they have a certified GA aircraft. Expect it to be innovative and reliable.

I don't blame you for the Post article, dms. It's typical fare from them, and the NY Times, etc. They have always been apologists for Clinton.

 

[Timebuilder]

Larry, that's pretty funny.

The corrected logic would be: your dog has bitten you on the leg before, and has recently threatened to pull your leg off and bury it in the backyard. Your "preemptive strike" would be to take him to the vet and have him put to sleep.

Nice try, though.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I'll swing this thread back to the tax plan Bush laid out. Just for a minute....

Chawbein,


Although I do have some significant (to me significant) cash in the stock market, in the tens of thousands of dollars, at my age, 34, I'm not invested in stocks and funds that pay out high dividends.

This plan will only provide instant cash to those people with a tremendous amount in the market in liquid assets, I'm talking into the hundreds of thousands and/or invested heavily in dividend paying stocks. I have no need for the income that is provided by mature, high dividend paying companies. I think this would best help older investors (and the very wealthy who own more than I can imagine at this time) who use these types of companies not only for the equity exposure but to augment their retirement income. Not to mention it will kill the municipal bond market which is attractive to those who are tax-averse but won't be much more stable than most mature corporations past their growth stages that pay those high dividends and whose popularity should go thru the roof if this passed (which it won't).

Again, I agree with the theory that we should not be double taxed but a complete wipe out with one signature isn't the way to go. Possibly a 10% cut this year, 10% next, etc. Then a major push for income tax cuts for people in the 35k-100k range. I'd be all for that. I think there is a law of diminishing returns after a certain income level. I think some people will spend more but others will just sock the cash away. The income range I specified would probably spend most of the cash used in the income tax cut to improve their quality of life in some way, hopefully significant.

And by the way, although I make a decent salary, I live in a part of the country where 50k+ doesn't take you very far. Obviously it is all relative. Thanks for your input.

To those who blame Clinton for 9/11, get over it. Leave the guy alone. Bush had 8 months in office prior to 9/11 and didn't prevent 9/11. It certainly isn't his fault in any manner. I think Bush has done a great job on the terrorist front (except for the TSA not profiling). Incredible that so many pilots here like to throw Clinton under the bus for those attacks though.


Mr. I.

 

[TXCAP4228]

DMS, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You are saying that Bush (being the big oil man that he is, wink, wink) is diverting money from R&D that would otherwise have been used for 80 miles per gallon cars and sending it to hydrogen car research that will wind up being unfeasible and cancelled. And you're saying he is doing this to protect the oil companies from 80mpg cars?.

Yeah. Kennedy REALLY proposed the moonshot so that we could mine all that green cheese up there - he had stock in green cheese exploratory companies you know. Wink, wink.

I'm with you bro. They almost had me sold that they were trying to HELP the environment, but I see now that its all a big conspiracy. We've sure got these guys figured out - those b@stards sure are sneaky aren't they?

 

[dmspilot00]

I have driven about 400 miles a week on interstates for the past two years on my way to school. I don't think there are radiological shipments every few minutes. I've only seen one in my entire lifetime. If there are, it is probably low-level waste such as exposed clothing, etc. The nuclear waste itself is another story. "Nuclear waste is recognized as the most dangerous substance known to humankind...it can deliver a lethal dose of radiation within seconds."

If you think there are already a lot of shipments, then consider when the Yucca Mt. site is ready, it will mean a thirty-fold (3,000%) increase of shipments. There have already been at least 8 accidents which caused leaks and contamination of roads or rails. When the Department of Energey itself projects over 300 accidents I think that is cause for alarm.

Edit: Additional information:
Over the past three decades, there have been an average of 90 shipments per year of the same type of high-level nuclear waste. When Yucca Mt. opens there will be 2,789.

---

I am glad to see progress being made on hydrogen powered vehicles, but I don't think we should throw away years of research and money that was spent on ultra-high mileage gasoline powered vehicles either.

 

[dmspilot00]

DMS, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You are saying that Bush (being the big oil man that he is, wink, wink) is diverting money from R&D that would otherwise have been used for 80 miles per gallon cars and sending it to hydrogen car research that will wind up being unfeasible and cancelled. And you're saying he is doing this to protect the oil companies from 80mpg cars?.

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not a psychic and can't possibly know what W is thinking. One possibility as presented in the article I cited is that it's the car companies who have persuaded Bush to forget about MPG. We don't know the whole story and I'm convinced much of what Bush does [and many politicians] is for the main purpose of looking good.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I'll swing this thread back to the tax plan Bush laid out. Just for a minute....
Although I do have some significant (to me significant) cash in the stock market, in the tens of thousands of dollars, at my age, 34, I'm not invested in stocks and funds that pay out high dividends.

There are not a low of stocks that pay out divedends today for the very reason that they do not provide that much return to the investor. If the double taxation scheme goes away then that will change. Imagine earning a return off of investments that is not dependant on the stock value. It would be more like earning interest in a bank acount at that point. More below.

This plan will only provide instant cash to those people with a tremendous amount in the market in liquid assets, I'm talking into the hundreds of thousands and/or invested heavily in dividend paying stocks. I have no need for the income that is provided by mature, high dividend paying companies. I think this would best help older investors (and the very wealthy who own more than I can imagine at this time) who use these types of companies not only for the equity exposure but to augment their retirement income.

You should also consider a couple of things. In the current market, stock prices are extremely volatile based on earnings estimates and other news. Without the double taxation scheme, companies could provide value to stockholders in other ways. The net result would be to disconnect the state of the economy (which today directly affects the equity markets) from day to day market fluctuations.

When that happens, the market becomes more stable.

Other benefits from that are that more and more companies will begin to pay divedends, increasing net yields to investors. And THAT helps EVERYONE who has any kind of retirement plan, pension fund, 401K, IRA or ANYTHING.

You are right that the it will take 2 years or more to really have an impact but it could be huge.

Not to mention it will kill the municipal bond market which is attractive to those who are tax-averse but won't be much more stable than most mature corporations past their growth stages that pay those high dividends and whose popularity should go thru the roof if this passed (which it won't).

It will not kill the muni market. It WILL however provide investors with more choices for retirement planning. I am FOR choices.

Also, In order to defend your position on this you have to defend the double taxation scheme.

Again, I agree with the theory that we should not be double taxed but a complete wipe out with one signature isn't the way to go. Possibly a 10% cut this year, 10% next, etc. Then a major push for income tax cuts for people in the 35k-100k range. I'd be all for that. I think there is a law of diminishing returns after a certain income level. I think some people will spend more but others will just sock the cash away. The income range I specified would probably spend most of the cash used in the income tax cut to improve their quality of life in some way, hopefully significant.

Timebuilder may have said before that ALL types of double taxation schemes are wrong - from taxes on divedends to taxes on estates. I agree with that. If we can say in principal that its wrong, let's do away with it now.

To those who blame Clinton for 9/11, get over it. Leave the guy alone. Bush had 8 months in office prior to 9/11 and didn't prevent 9/11. It certainly isn't his fault in any manner. I think Bush has done a great job on the terrorist front (except for the TSA not profiling). Incredible that so many pilots here like to throw Clinton under the bus for those attacks though.
Mr. I.

I agree that it isn't Bush's fault but let's look at Pres. Clinton for a moment. Khobar towers, WTC attack#1, embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole. How many times did we have to be attacked before WJC (WJC is how the deposition transcript refferred to him) actually did something. The Clinton administration was AWOL. Perhaps criminally so. I'm sorry some of you don't like to hear it.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

TXCAP,

I appreciate the reply but I don't see it as you do for the most part. Although I agree that the number of dividend paying stocks is low I don't believe that many companies will begin providing much in the way of new dividends. Maybe some but I'm talking about issuing a .05 cent dividend, something along those lines.

I believe very few companies will start paying dividends for two reasons;

1. Once a company has started paying, the market looks very unfavorably on the a cut. Same reason for dividends being newly issued or increased by very small amounts.

2. Most companies will want to use that cash to spur growth in the corporation. Very few executives realize when their companies are in their mature stage and not growing any longer. I doubt they'll start throwing out divs when they can try out that new venture they've always had ideas about.


As for the markets volatility, I don't think possible div payouts have anything to do with it. Inaccurate earings forecasts, earnings surprises and the excess cash that has been thrown into the market the last 10-15 years (particularly from retirement accounts) I believe causes the volatility we see today.


Hey, I'm with you and Timebuilder I just disagree that one signature should completely wipe out $300 billion in taxes. Thus my suggestion for a gradual phase out.

Although I'm pro-"go get Saddam", the combo of funding the war and throwing in the tax cut is going to hurt at some point. I have no doubt it should force a raise in interest rates when the govt. has to issue debt to pay for these actions. I'm sure that tax revenues will increase as the economy comes back but I'm not sure how much it will cover of our debt in the future.

Regardless I don't think this plan is going to make it thru the senate and house anyway.


Mr. I.

 

[Timebuilder]

This is one of our better discussions.

This afternoon, Rodger Hedgecock mentioned what TXCAP4228 mentiond above. A lot of market volitility has come from the idea that only capital appreciation is the way to benfit from investing; the old "buy low, sell high" game. When people invest in the companies that pay dividends, a great many more companies will begin to pay dividends, in order to KEEP THEIR INVESTORS!!

If we give tax relief to those who pay the vast majority of taxes, what Tom Daschle refers to as "the rich", then we will see a tremendous growth in the economy, and a rush to dividend-paying companies. Daschle's idea of "targeted tax cuts" will give people enough money to buy a washer and dryer, or a rebuilt transmission. On the other hand, if we reduce the top margin for our largest taxpayers, that money goes into hundreds of American companies, the ones that employ the rest of us.

From the government side, we already have seen that a reduction of the top taxpayer's margin actually INCREASES the money that comes into the treasury. This why it is a lie when Daschle says that a tax cut will "cost money". Quite the opposite, it will create economic value, in real dollars.

The worst part? Daschle KNOWS it is a lie. So does Hillary, Check Schumer, and the whole bunch. They just can't resist playing the "class warfare" card. So sad.

 

[TXCAP4228]

TXCAP,

I appreciate the reply but I don't see it as you do for the most part. Although I agree that the number of dividend paying stocks is low I don't believe that many companies will begin providing much in the way of new dividends. Maybe some but I'm talking about issuing a .05 cent dividend, something along those lines.

I believe very few companies will start paying dividends for two reasons;

1. Once a company has started paying, the market looks very unfavorably on the a cut. Same reason for dividends being newly issued or increased by very small amounts.

2. Most companies will want to use that cash to spur growth in the corporation. Very few executives realize when their companies are in their mature stage and not growing any longer. I doubt they'll start throwing out divs when they can try out that new venture they've always had ideas about.

You make some good points.

1) The market has in recent times looked unfavorably on paying divedends because the better way to increase shareholder value was (/is) from the pure equity approach - ie, increase the share value.
2) You are correct with number 2, but I think that long established and mature companies may begin to do this as an alternative way to increase shareholder returns without the risk of expaning operations into new areas.

As for the markets volatility, I don't think possible div payouts have anything to do with it. Inaccurate earings forecasts, earnings surprises and the excess cash that has been thrown into the market the last 10-15 years (particularly from retirement accounts) I believe causes the volatility we see today.

This one took me a while to really "get." The idea is that if you tie a stock' desirability to something other than the share price going up or down, then you have done something to allow it to continue to be of value to a stockholder in spite of economic swings (and all things that cause daily and seasonal market fluctuations) then the market will tend to be more stabalized. Sort of like yaw damp?

The net effect is that the economy will not be so closely tied to direct market equity.

Like I said, it took me a week or two to really digest that but it makes a lot of sense to me.

Hey, I'm with you and Timebuilder I just disagree that one signature should completely wipe out $300 billion in taxes. Thus my suggestion for a gradual phase out.

On this you have a good point. The only really good counter I had when I responded yesterday was to say that if is that if its wrong we just shouldn't do it. I realize that's kind of weak so I thought of something else too (I am surprised I didn't thin of it before). By increasing returns to the investors you increase what can be reinvested. Most pension plans and mutual finds (401K plans etc...) reinvest divedend earnings. This is good for the economy.

There will be a lag time for this to take hold but I think it will.

Although I'm pro-"go get Saddam", the combo of funding the war and throwing in the tax cut is going to hurt at some point. I have no doubt it should force a raise in interest rates when the govt. has to issue debt to pay for these actions. I'm sure that tax revenues will increase as the economy comes back but I'm not sure how much it will cover of our debt in the future.

The "end of deficits" that Clinton claimed in the late 90's was purely a result of predicting the economy would grow at X rate forever. This was never realistic, but how do you argue with it? Most people would never really be able to follow that lines of thought, and most wouldn't care to anyway.

Anyway, that is a preface to saying that we really were going to get back to deficits at somepoint regardless because spending is still not under control. For me, the cost of waiting for the war outweighs the short term economic cost. We have let Sadaam have a pass for too long and now we have to face the music....

I still haven't gien up hope that he will abdicate and self exile himself but we'll see.

Regardless I don't think this plan is going to make it thru the senate and house anyway.
Mr. I.

I actually think it will.

Timebuilder is right, this is a great discussion.

 

[TXCAP4228]

This is one of our better discussions.

The worst part? Daschle KNOWS it is a lie. So does Hillary, Check Schumer, and the whole bunch. They just can't resist playing the "class warfare" card. So sad.

It is sad. This is why I get so disgusted with the obfuscation and disingenuousness of the left. My own party isn't perfect, but no conservative ever goes out and LIES directly to a camera in a way that is intended to persuade those who only follow the news enough to get the "sound bite".

Look at Chuck Schumer submitting a bill to reinstitue the draft! Its ABSURD, and its 110% political! Purely for shock value, to SCARE people.