Missing in Action
1963 JACOBSON ELLWOOD L. REMAINS RECOVERED
1963 MAKEL JANIE A. 03/06/63 REMAINS RECOVERED
1966 ANDREWS STUART M STAMFORD CT
1966 CONLON JOHN F. WILKES BARRE PA
1967 CARLOCK RALPH L. DES PLAINES IL
1969 GUFFEY JERRY 03/04/69 ESCAPED
1970 PARKER JOHN J. TALLAHASSEE FL
1971 ALLWINE DAVID R. PHOENIX AZ 03/27/73 RELEASED BY PRG ALIVE AND WELL 98
1971 ALGAARD HAROLD L. FOSSTON MN "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 HENTZ RICHARD J. OSHKOSH WI "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 MARKER MICHAEL W. WICHITA FALLS TX "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 OSBORNE RODNEY D. KENT WA "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 STRAWN JOHN T. SALEM OR "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
http://www.scopesys.com/today/
Slipping into an Altered Reality
The Current Administration has no regard for the USA or it's incredible history. An article in the St. Petersburg Times sparked a reality that falls completely in line with the negligence of the Bush/Cheney White House to provide an Economic Strategy not a haphazard 'gamble' for an economy.
The earliest day of George Walker Bush proved to send a huge amount of jobs overseas and primarily to Asia where his brother Neil Bush is a power broker with a lifestyle that is hardly based in Evangelical Christian beliefs.
The lack of a clear direction of strategy for Economic Reform has presented in 'wild' Dreamscapes of 'toying' with Social Security without any particulars. Bush presents himself as if a visionary who like his 'preacher' demeanor will 'inspire' changes he never conceptualizes. Anyone, including draconian profiteers, 'takes on the challenge' directing Federal Policy into concrete plans. "Dubya" simply approves of 'the brainstorming' of those who care to rescue his pathetic administration as if he is the genius who has saved the USA from long established policy headed for disaster.
George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney are frauds. They have not even a vision except for their own personal wealth.
The St. Petersburg Times, "GOING FORWARD…"
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml
Sound right?
Why rewrite what is already written, GOING FORWARD?
conti2005 - 8:22 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11809 of 11984)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
You are not getting the whole picture...
Bankrupt Bankruptcy Bill
... when you look at where the country is headed you have to realize the picture Bush and the Repuglicans are working out is so obsure to the majority of Americans we are lost in a maze of 'What the heck?' most of the time.
I was floundering with Bush's insistance on changing Social Security and why Alan Greenspan would seem to overtly to change 180 degree direction over night until I ran across an old article in The St. Petersburg Times that hit a nerve.
Bush pushes 'ownership' and 'privatization' for social security?
We are all thinking familiarity with 401Ks and Roth IRAs.
"W"rong.
Dig this.
A complete change in the way one lives their lives based not on work ethics, skills and income from earnings.
Nothing like that.
Bush frequently states, "Today was good news for job seekers."
Try a society whereby ONLY INVESTMENT is the only 'risky business' a household bases their income only to 'work at a job' when all is lost on a bad investment.
St. Petersburg Times
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml [...]
Sound right?
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.'
conti2005 - 8:36 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11828 of 11983)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
That might be so...
patth #11817 8:26 PM ET 3/3/2005
... but before the country changes laws requiring Americans to be responsible, the country itself will have to dig itself out of fiscal debt.
That article from The St. Petersburg Times is huge.
Realize, Patty, what the administration has done. They literally without even a conversation with congress redirected jobs overseas to where Neil Bush lives, they have cut taxes to the bone and as they put it, '...to encourage investment...' and literally is feeding off the globe now and the 'good graces' of the American Dollar for nearly two years now.
This is Don Evan's Dream for Every American. The flag waving idiot he is. He and Bush once sat together and was asked 'What about jobs?' The literally said, "Well, we just don't know; we have to see what develops."
Now that might sound like solid conservative economic strategy to some but when you realize Bush is getting a 'hard on' over Junior Colleges when undercutting funding to them, you have to realize this is a covert way to undermine the work force in this country while sending them to places like Iraq and Halliburton and at the same time allowing 'illegal aliens' to have status to provide the lowest paid labor force in the country.
What are the 'Wonder Boys' trying to pull off? They are hoping people get either greedy enough or hungry enough to find dirt cheap labor and a way to make money to support their family away from welfare and food stamps.
Realize, Patty, this is an economic strategy at play now for over four years. Four flyin' years. It has failed and not only that it is sending this country to where Argentina used to live while at the same time convincing Alan Greenspan this is the best direction for the country.
The $2 trillion is for continued investment into CONVERTING the economy into an investment economy.
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.' I don't see this 'AGENDA' "going forward."
…………………………………….
Dr. Krugman has been on the trail of The Bush Agenda of "Starve the Beast" of years now. Today, it would seem 'going forward' the conservative economic disaster that is Bush has not only crashed the USA Dollar but created a National Security issue. The type of national security issue Homeland Security is incapable of guarding against.
Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?pagewanted=print&position=
