Why are you using the word "insurgency" to refer to people who are defending their own country from outside invaders?

Knock it off, Michael, you know everyone's using that word. It's not accurate, so what? You know what he means.

Great article. It's been pretty obvious that we ( all Americans, including leaders and grunts ) are dumb as rocks where the Middle East is concerned.

Just turn off the damn TV and read the Coaster. ( and some others :)

Probably because the 'insurgent' tag is a the colloquialism of the present. I would agree that its a rotten name. The name-makers are handicapped by number of issues of their own making in forming a more accurate description of the violent resistance, (simplemindness for one) but the groups are un-coorindated and un-unifed (as Al Quaeda has been described) - and they don't flock under one banner name unlike the VietCong.

We - the Americans - can't even admit that we're in the midst of a Civil War in Iraq.

GOP Senator Chuck Hagel admits the obvious: the Senate Republicans are being hypocrites about the filibuster when they themselves prevented around 60 of Bill Clinton’s nominees from even getting a vote.

From the story, it appears that Hagel was referring to nominees that died in committee, which suggests that it was in the period from 1995-2001 when the Reps had a Senate majority.

Which further suggests that the majority scarcely had to filibuster to stop these nominees, and apparently did not threaten to do so - a simple vote would have sufficed (and apparently did, in committee, for some of these 60).

Of course, in the current scenario, the nominees are clearing the committe and being denied an up or down vote in the full Senate.

Well, I expect you knew that.

Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq.

We've suspected it for some time. Now we have at least one jounalist's perception, and from someone who has been there. It's a terrible indictment of the current Administration.

Have we hit 1600 dead in Iraq yet? Ding! I wonder which neo-con won the office pool on that one?

Of course, in the current scenario, the nominees are clearing the committe and being denied an up or down vote in the full Senate.

Nobody's denying anybody a vote; we just want a good, long time to talk things over.

Nobody's denying anybody a vote; we just want a good, long time to talk things over.

Another 3 1/2 years oughta do the trick. IMO.

Another 3 1/2 years oughta do the trick. IMO.

Sounds 'bout right.

Quite the most fun thing about the Krugman column is that the middle class guy there on $60k actually makes out very well from the changes when tax and benefits are added together, as the Professor wants us to do.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/05/krugmans_number.html

I might treat your argument seriously, Tim, if you accounted for how the government would pay off the deficits the tax cuts created. The simple fact, though, is that the current levels of taxation aren't sustainable even with the benefit cuts. So the $1000 tax break is going to go away at some point; it has to.

And Tim, what assumptions are you making exactly about these "benefits"?

Of course, the investor class tends to be conservative. The Democrats are scared to death that private accounts would cost them voters. The main reason the Democrats oppose Social Security reform has nothing to do with Social Security, but about voter registration going forward. Even if private accounts would benefit the US population, it'd cost the Democrats at the polls.

We've already seen this in action, as Americans have built stock wealth through the 90's to today, and as record numbers of Americans now own their own homes. The Democrats are taking the hit at the voting booth as the affluence of Americans increases.

Many people are in debt up to their eyeballs, the bank really owns their homes. The middle class is being wiped off the map and some call it an increase in "the affluence of Americans."

Even if private accounts would benefit the US population,....

So you finally admit the truth that private accounts won't benefit the US population. It's the only honest thing you have stated in your post and in a long while muck.

Emal, everyone knows that the 6-7% compounding returns of social security private accounts would outperform the 2% (or less) return from today's social security accounts. Even somebody like you should be able to understand that.

The question brighter minds are asking, is who would oppose higher returns, and why? The "why?" is the more important question. Why do democrats oppose people becoming more affluent?

It'd cost them dearly in voter registration.

Once people know how money works, it's hard to be a Democrat. Everything they've been telling you is wrong. They have a real conflict of interest in that party. They say they want to improve folks lot in life; but, they can't because those folks would switch parties in a New York minute!

muck, I am quoting your words, not mine.

Even if private accounts would benefit the US population.....

Emal, you don't think 6-7% compounding over a lifetime would be more than 2% compounding over the same period?

muck, you don't think that gross misleading comment you just made about return rates actually addresses your own comment do you?

Anyway what you have done is tried to deflect through a very gross overgeneralization and oversimplification and I am not going to play your diversionary game today.

6% of $1,000 dollars, 2% of billion dollars....hmmmmmmmm

Emal, you don't think 6-7% compounding over a lifetime would be more than 2% compounding over the same period?

Clawback, muck, don't forget about the clawback. And that 6-7% ain't no guarantee. What do you suppose will happen when all these new "homeowners" are foreclosed on because they can't keep up with the ARMs and have no savings and only put 3% down?

Also, private accounts aren't helping repubs, either. The red states hate the whole idea of Bush gutting social security.

And before I forget it....investment fees on those private accounts are going to eat into that potential 6-7% also.

You guys really don't have a clue. Sad. Well, since you won't obtain any knowledge for yourself about historical rates of return, diversification, asset allocation, and the low expenses of index funds, I think you will be sitting around eating cat food out of tin cans hoping that Congress can raise taxes on Paris Hilton.

Do you really believe that the average American knows anything about historical rates of return, diversification, asset allocation, and the low expenses of index funds? Not when they're working as a greeter as Walmart because their pension was robbed and social security isn't enough.

Asshole. Yes, those of us posting on this blog more than likely know all about investing. But the reality is that we represent a very small subset of the American population.

And that greeter at wallyworld is probably working a second or third job to make ends meet so doesn't have time to learn about investing.
It's a shame that anyone jokes about people eating catfood.