SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Suma who wrote (48913)6/11/2004 7:35:28 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
The Neocons’ One-Trick Pony

lewrockwell.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: elpolvo who wrote (48917)6/11/2004 7:38:06 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
The u-turn that saved the Gipper

guardian.co.uk 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: stockman_scott who wrote (48922)6/11/2004 7:44:06 PM
From: DOUG H
   of 89461
 
Homeless in America
The Real Reagan Record

nationalreview.com  08, 2004, 8:47 a.m.

By Annelise Anderson

EDITOR'S NOTE: This appeared in the August 31, 1992, issue of National Review.

In the Wall Street Journal of May 19, 1989, reporter Andy Zipser claimed that "pretty much everyone agrees...that by any standard homelessness has multiplied enormously in a period of general affluence...and that if finger-pointing is called for, the fingers should point to Washington.... As need has escalated in recent years, total spending has plummeted."




Total spending did not plummet, however. Like the other mythmakers, Mr. Zipser has taken budget-authority numbers and used them as spending — or budget-outlay — numbers.

If the Congress appropriates funds for an aircraft carrier, it doesn't fund just next year's expenditures — it bites the whole bullet. Actual spending may occur over five years or more. It funds the construction of subsidized housing the same way — up front. In 1982, there was $240 billion for housing in budget authority appropriated in earlier years that hadn't been spent.

The budget authority for subsidized housing did decrease in the Reagan years, from $27.9 billion in 1980 and $26.9 billion in 1981 to an average of $10 to $11 billion in the years 1982-88. Thus there were annual opportunities for claiming that the budget had been cut. In a masterpiece of confusion, Time magazine claimed (May 21, 1990) that "Since 1980 federal outlays for rent subsidies and home-building for the poor and elderly have dropped from $41 million to $10 million," thus mixing up not only authority and outlays, but millions and billions as well.

In spite of reductions in budget authority for housing subsidies, annual outlays kept on increasing; construction funded in earlier years was built; the numbers of households and people subsidized increased.

Expenditures for low-income assisted housing doubled between 1980 and 1984; it took until 1990 for 1980 GNP to double. Federal outlays for low-income housing thus increased as a percentage of GNP. With the dollar increases came increases in the number of beneficiaries — from 10.6 million people in 1980 to 14 million in 1990, an increase of almost one-third while the population increased by only one-tenth. The number of households assisted also increased, from 3.1 million in 1980 to 4.4 million in 1990. Additional beneficiaries were served by the Farmers Home Administration.

In sum, federal spending increases for housing during the Reagan Administration rivaled those for national defense; the percentage of the population receiving benefits increased; a record percentage of the population was employed; and yet the problem of homelessness began to appear — supposedly because of the Reagan "budget cuts."

If budged cuts caused homelessness, the solution would be obvious and simple — increase the budget. Just the opposite is the problem: homelessness occurred as a social phenomenon at a time when increasing cash outlays were subsidizing housing for an increasingly great percentage of the population.

Some writers have sought explanations in rent control and over-regulation as contributors to a decreased availability of low-cost rental housing, and indeed the consumer price index for rental housing increased somewhat faster than the overall CPI; on the other hand, vacancy rates generally increased in the 1980s, and other costs — such as transportation and food — increased at a lower rate than the overall CPI. More significant may be the constitutional challenges to vagrancy and loitering laws; by the 1980s, it had simply become legal to live and sleep on the streets.

— Annelise Anderson, a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (48891)6/11/2004 7:45:23 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
While America Sleeps
__________________________

sftt.org 

06-07-2004


While America Sleeps





By David H. Hackworth



Wake up, America – we’re at war! And we’re not talking about a limited, one-time shootout confined to Afghanistan and Iraq, where we’ll hopefully wear down the guerrilla enemy and our troops will come marching home.



We’re engaged in a global war, a long-term conflict against a stateless Islamic movement that’s been scoring hits against the USA in the name of Allah since the 1983 truck-bomb murder of 241 of our Marines and sailors in Beirut, Lebanon. The alarm sounded decades ago – not on 9/11, as so many uninformed Americans hold. We just slept through it, as well as through subsequent assaults – Beirut to Pan Am 103 to World Trade Center I to the USS Cole – that have become increasingly violent and more frequent through the years.



This is already America’s longest war, and certainly the Judeo-Christian world’s most crucial conflict since World War II – when Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini also were determined to erase every value, every concept, every belief we hold dear. And there’s no doubt in my military mind that America and our allies will still be fighting this ruthless, relentless, radical terrorist enemy on the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I, the 20th-century conflict that was supposed to end all wars.



That’s because international Islamic religious fanatics have the same goal as the Axis fascists – the destruction of our way of life. Their plan is to return the entire world – not just the Middle East – to the days of the caliphate and either convert all of us so-called infidels into born-again Islamic believers or kill us.



Our fumbling government’s response since Beirut – during both Republican and Democratic administrations – has been to cut and run, or to flat ignore this growing threat, apparently hoping it would go away. Or occasionally our leaders would retaliate against a terrorist attack with a few missiles or an airstrike accompanied by the standard barrage of toothless threats.



Meanwhile, the international terrorist movement has only been getting stronger, acquiring catastrophic weapons and developing bolder tactics while its dedicated operators have become more cunning and more organized, expanding and setting up in virtually every nation in the world.



True, Bush & Company responded smartly to 9/11 by jump-starting the Department of Homeland Security, thundering into Afghanistan, blowing the Taliban out of business and sending al Qaeda scurrying to the hills. But then came the invasion of Iraq – our country’s biggest military miscalculation to date – where we virtually ignored the main military objective of destroying al-Qaeda, as well as the important socio-economic opportunity to rebuild Afghanistan into the same sort of shining example for the Muslim world that West Germany once was for the Soviet Bloc states.



Fortunately, it’s still not too late to develop a comprehensive global strategy to eliminate our real enemy. This new direction might not be great for the warmongers, neoconservatives and war profiteers, but it would go a long way toward giving all of our grandkids a future the way our World War II victory gave one to my generation and my kids.



Of course, it’s imperative that we stabilize Iraq and quickly reduce our armed role there. But we simultaneously need to reorganize our military forces to fight the war at hand, shed both the Cold War thinking and the structure of our active, Reserve and National Guard components – and understand who our primary enemy is and the true nature of the war in which we're engaged.



“Never underestimate the enemy,” writes former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke in his brilliant book Against All Enemies. “Our current enemy is in for the long haul. They are smart and patient. Defeating them will take creativity and imagination, as well as energy. It will be the struggle of the friends of freedom and civil liberties around the world.”



We citizens must drop the denial, apathy and foggy thinking that's gotten us into this mess, take charge of our government – which has irresponsibly ignored this threat to our national security for 21 years – and finally answer the wake-up call.



And we’d better get cracking immediately – before the next 9/11 blisters in and takes an even bloodier toll.



–Eilhys England contributed to this column.

_______________________________________________

Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, wehre you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Skywatcher who wrote (48919)6/11/2004 8:33:49 PM
From: Selectric II
   of 89461
 
How ironic that you should suggest that. Bush gave Saddam numerous opportunities to comply with the UN resolutions, then several opportunities to leave Iraq peacefully. This was after twelve (12) years of Saddam's noncompliance.

Do you think that Saddam would have complied if we had "just" given him 13 years instead of just 12?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: DOUG H who wrote (48923)6/11/2004 10:16:15 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
<<...Carter still enjoys world-wide respect as a decent human being who uses his fame to promote just causes. Bush will be known as the Gordon Gekko of presidents...>>


washingtonmonthly.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: elpolvo who wrote (48917)6/11/2004 10:18:11 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
Fahrenheit 9/11 Preview:

fahrenheit911.com 

"The temperature at which freedom burns."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (48878)6/11/2004 10:19:49 PM
From: stockman_scott
   of 89461
 
Message 20214917

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: stockman_scott who wrote (48927)6/11/2004 10:37:29 PM
From: sylvester80
   of 89461
 
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should see Fahrenheit 9/11. EVERYONE!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: SOROS who started this subject6/11/2004 10:39:36 PM
From: sylvester80
   of 89461
 
NEWS: Rush Limbaugh announces end of his third marriage
msnbc.msn.com 

That's a conservatice "Christian" hypcorite for you.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.