Fresh Pickings from the Grapevine

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Morris: McCain is No Front-Runner
Dick Morris on Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential chances: "You can?t be a front-runner for your party?s nomination and win 5 percent of the vote in a regional straw poll, finishing fourth, behind Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Virginia Sen. George Allen. While McCain still leads in the national polls (not counting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani), he is no genuine front-runner. He lacks the requisite enthusiasm he would need among core Republicans to cop that title."

"He is, in fact, more of a stalking horse, a place to store voter preferences while the other candidates for the nomination break through their low thresholds of name recognition."


Bonus Quote of the Day
?Sure, absolutely... I'm voting for the Republican woman.?

-- First Lady Laura Bush, quoted by the AP, when asked if the United States was ready for a woman president. Perhaps she knows something about Condoleezza Rice's intentions

Is Snow Planning His Exit?
A Hotline source says Treasury Secretary John Snow "met with officials at the Office of Presidential Personnel" yesterday morning, "and that Snow's calendar has been cleared for Thursday afternoon and all of Friday."

"While this could be another of the ever-present Snow-retirement and Card-to-Treasury rumors, at least some staffers at Treasury believe their boss may be on his way out the door, and in the very near future."

McCain's 2008 Strategy
Howard Fineman says that to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Sen. John McCain's advisers "want to build out their campaign with members of the Bush circle, and base McCain's pitch on the notion that he is the only sensible, electable and competent commander who can take control of the war on terror."

At last weekend's Southern Republican Leadership Conference, McCainanites "worked closely on straw poll strategy with Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a Bush loyalist widely regarded as one of the sharpest strategic and organizational minds in the party. They are wooing him to come aboard officially, which would be a major coup for McCain... Word around the Peabody lobby is that another former GOP chairman, Richard Bond, is part of an unofficial circle of counselors, too."


L.A. Times Rewrites History of Bush Incompetence on Iran
The Los Angeles Times had a major story today reporting that Iran ?may be losing its long-standing reluctance to speak directly with the United States,? but that the Bush administration is rejecting Iran?s overtures.

The Times falsely paints this as a major shift in policy both for Iran (in favor of direct talks) and the United States (against direct talks). The title of the article, for instance, is ?Iran May Finally Be Ready to Talk.?

Actually, as the Washington Post reported in 2004, Iranian officials have made at least three separate efforts to initiate direct talks with the Bush administration. Due to sheer incompetence, all three went nowhere:

Bush has struggled ? thus far without success ? to roll back significant nuclear advances in North Korea and Iran. ? Bush demanded that Pyongyang and Tehran reverse course [away from nuclear weapons], but his national security team could not agree on policies to induce or compel those governments to submit. The stalemate left three secret overtures from Tehran unanswered and a presidential directive on Iran unsigned after 31 months of drafting attempts.

Beyond the ?axis of evil? rhetoric, U.S. policy towards Iran has basically been paralyzed for five years. The L.A. Times should be exposing that history, not whitewashing it.


36. President Bush?s approval rating in a new WSJ/Harris poll, down from 40 in February and 43 in January. March 14, 2006


Fed Chairman concerned about Bush?s fiscal recklessness. New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: ?The prospective increase in the budget deficit will place at risk future living standards of our country.?


Sen. Feingold said the following to Fox News? Trish Turner:

I?m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president?s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. ? Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they?ll say we?d better just focus on domestic issues. ? [Democrats shouldn?t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you?re helping the terrorists.


3%. Percentage of Americans who believe Bush decided to go to war to free the Iraqis or promote democracy, according to a new CBS poll. March 14, 2006


25%. Percentage of Americans who believe the Iraq war was worth the costs, according to a new CBS poll

More Downing Street revelations: In a confidential memo written in May 2003, John Sawers, Prime Minister Tony Blair?s envoy in Baghdad, characterized the U.S. postwar administration of Iraq as ?No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.? At approximately the same time, Bush was declaring ?Mission Accomplished.?

Pakistan?s foreign office ?paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the U.S. to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report,? according to foreign service officials in a Pakistani weekly.

Right-wing Christian evangelist Pat Robertson shows no signs of slowing down after losing his seat earlier this month on the Religious Broadcasters? Board over a series of hate-filled comments. Robertson yesterday called Muslims ?satanic? and distanced himself from Bush by declaring Islam is not a religion of peace.

$1.05 million: Amount taxpayers spent last year on leasing vehicles for members of Congress, including ?Lexuses, Lincolns, Cadillacs, an Infiniti, even a BMW 530i.?

Abramoff probe deepens: Senate investigators are reviewing new documents subpoenaed from Abramoff?s former lobby firms, Greenberg Traurig and Preston Gates and Ellis. ?To date, those firms have largely dodged the bullet, pleading ignorance of Jack?s misdeeds. But scandal-watchers say that?s hard to swallow.? expand post ?

Debt clock retired too soon? ?When it shut down, the federal budget was running a surplus. ? The rising debt tally is a reminder, economists say, that the nation is on an unsustainable fiscal course.?

“Executives from six major oil companies will make what is expected to be a standing-room-only appearance at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where lawmakers will push for an explanation of the companies? huge profits and what they plan to do to ease consumers? soaring energy costs.” Will Specter pull a Stevens, or will he swear them in?

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached ?a new record level? and Arctic sea ice ?has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.?

Morale is low at the Department of Homeland Security as ?[v]acancies and personnel turnover have reached such high levels?that they may be hampering the agency?s effectiveness.?

And finally: Frederick Malek, the Advisory Committee member of Scooter Libby?s legal fund who infamously counted the number of Jews in a government agency, was arrested as a young man for killing, skinning, barbecuing, and eating a dog.

Making Progress? Bush Backtracks In Assessments of Iraq and Afghanistan
Today, as he often does, President Bush said we are making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan: ?We are making progress in the march of freedom ? and some of the most important progress has taken place in a region that has not known the blessings of liberty: the broader Middle East.?

But a quick review of Bush?s statements today versus his earlier statements about Iraq and Afghanistan reveal that the condition in those countries has deteriorated steadily over time.

AFGHANISTAN THEN:

And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. [9/27/04]

AFGHANISTAN NOW:

Taliban and al Qaeda remnants continue to fight Afghanistan?s democratic progress. In recent weeks, they have launched new attacks that have killed Afghan civilians and coalition forces. [3/13/06]

IRAQ THEN:

We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. [5/1/03]

IRAQ NOW:

The past few weeks, the world has seen very different images from Iraq ? images of violence, and anger, and despair. We have seen a great house of worship ? the Golden Mosque of Samarra ? in ruins after a brutal terrorist attack. We?ve seen mass protests in response to provocation. We?ve seen reprisal attacks by armed militias on Sunni mosques ? and random violence that has taken the lives of hundreds of Iraqi citizens
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Doesn't that essay make your heart sing with happiness over how things are going in our country now and into the future? Welcome to the 2006 elections, baby.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Iran is a complete screw up. Now there pushing weapons are coming from Iran into Iraq. But with in the administration they are fighting over if thats true. There searching for excuse to start bombing. They better miss the electrical pants in Iran. Iraq's new so called government is having talks with Iran to buy electricity from them. Iraq's power grids are in such bad shape there is only power to half of the country. As for bombing Iran. We better be right this time before we start. Not use same type of bad info as we did for Iraq. In fact let the rest of the world handle Iran. We still have not got Iraq right.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full text of the letter follows:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Card:

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

Enclosure



Shake-Up at the White House?
"Two Republican sources close to the White House have confirmed to ABC News that in recent days there has been talk of making staff additions to the Bush team to bring a steadying influence to the White House. One says the president's advisers are in a self-examination mode after a spate of bad news."


Harris Will Stay in Senate Race
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) "plans to spend $10 million of her inheritance in her race" to unseat Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), she announced tonight, according to the AP.

"She ended speculation that she would quit the race on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes political talk show. Rumors swirled that she would withdraw after her name was associated with a defense contractor who bribed another congressman."

Said Harris: "I'm staying. I'm in this race. I'm going to win. I'm going to put everything on the line."

Hotline On Call: "Looks like Nelson has another excuse to make his way around the country to raise money. Remember, the millionaire's amendment doesn't kick in for Nelson unless she dumps the money in AFTER the Florida primary. But, if another Republican chooses to challenge Harris in the primary, then they can raise money in $12K chunks for the primary."


Another Poll Shows Bush in Free Fall
Pessimism about the Iraq war has driven President Bush?s approval rating to his lowest-ever and improved Democratic prospects in fall mid-term elections, a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows. Just 37% of Americans approve of Bush's job performance, while 58% disapprove.

Furthermore, Democrats have opened a wide lead, 50% to 37%, in voter preferences for which party should control Congress.


Democrats Expand Lead in Generic Ballot
The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds Democrats leading Republicans 55% to 39% among registered voters in the generic congressional ballot. "This is the largest lead Democrats have held over Republicans in the 2006 campaign thus far, and the largest lead Democrats have enjoyed among registered voters in a midterm election since 1982."

Bush Approval Falls to 33%
"In the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal, President Bush's approval rating has hit a new low and his image for honesty and effectiveness has been damaged," according to a new Pew Research poll.

"The president's ratings for handling of several specific issues, particularly terrorism, have also declined sharply. Just 42% now approve of Bush's job in handling terrorist threats, an 11-point drop since February... Bush's personal image also has weakened noticeably, which is reflected in people's one-word descriptions of the president. Honesty had been the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in the current survey "incompetent" is the descriptor used most frequently."

Key finding: "A more detailed portrait of the falloff in Bush approval shows significant declines among groups who had been the president's strongest supporters."

Meanwhile, a new Survey USA poll finds Bush's approval over 50% in just three states. Overall, it's just 36%.

Harkin Backs Feingold's Censure Effort
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) "has become the first co-sponsor to Sen. Russ Feingold?s (D-WI) controversial resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing an allegedly illegal domestic surveillance program," Roll Call reports.

Said Harkin: "I think it makes sense. ... Quite frankly, I think we ought to have a full-fledged debate on this."



The war on the courts. ?Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O?Connor have been the targets of death threats from the ?irrational fringe? of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.? The latest right-wing campaign


Yesterday, Army Gen. John Abizaid, who runs U.S. operations in Iraq, said the United States may maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Reuters reports:

The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.

Previously, the Bush administration has said that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes, 12/8/05:

CHARLIE ROSE: They think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq?

KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job.

CHARLIE ROSE: And do we not want to keep bases there?

KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible.
 

lostinamerica

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 10, 2001
7,356
193
63
Between Green Bay and Iowa City
Master Capper said:
In a confidential memo written in May 2003, John Sawers, Prime Minister Tony Blair?s envoy in Baghdad, characterized the U.S. postwar administration of Iraq as ?No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.? At approximately the same time, Bush was declaring ?Mission Accomplished.?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

GL
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Wonder what Kerry's-Clinton-Kennedy-Gore ect approval rating would be--if polls are correct the only polls lower are on congress.


Lets look at alternatives--I'll try and do 1 a day here in MC thread time permitting


Comparing Economic Freedom with Political Orientation
A study called "US Economic Freedom Index" analyzed 143 variables and rank correlated our 50 states according to the degree of economic freedom given to their citizens. It is even more interesting to compare the Top 10 (most free) and Bottom 10 (least free) with their choice of president in the recent presidential election.


Top 10
1) Kansas (Bush)
2) Colorado (Bush
3) Virginia (Bush)
4) Idaho (Bush)
5) Utah (Bush)
6) Oklahoma (Bush)
7) New Hampshire (Kerry)
8) Delaware (Kerry)
9) Wyoming (Bush)
10) Missouri (Bush)




Bottom 10
50) New York (Kerry)
49) California (Kerry)
48) Connecticut (Kerry)
47) Rhode Island (Kerry)
46) Illinois (Kerry)
45) Pennsylvania (Kerry)
44) Minnesota (Kerry)
43) Ohio (Bush)
42) New Jersey (Kerry)
41) Massachusetts (Kerry)
40) Louisiana (Bush)

Sources: US Economic Freedom Index: 2004 Report, Pacific Research Institute; The Political Junkie Handbook
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
We only have one Pres and he's getting attention he wishes would go away. Lets see how good he handles Iran. I wonder if he can get it done with out firing a shot. And 80 dollar a barrel of oil. Bush wants to be real hero he will pull this off.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
DTB - I don't know what they measure in that economic freedom index, but it cannot be particular accurate or useful if Nevada doesn't even make the top 10.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Did DTB actually say the polls on Congress are lower than Bush. Who has control of Congress? Last time I looked it was the Republicans.
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
What the heck is economic freedom? The ease of earning and spending a buck? What? Now I gotta go research that subject.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
While the US Economic Freedom Index is actually a study done, but DTB fails to acknowledge that this was published in the National Review a highly polarized Conservative rag and that the Pacific Research Group sponsers such non partisan events as;

March 17, 2006
Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today
featuring Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., President - The Heritage Foundation; 555 California Street, San Francisco, CA

So you can see the source is highly questionable in this matter!
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Nuclear Strategy

The liberal Federation of American Scientists is suggesting that nuclear weapons are just as safe in Iranian hands as they are in American hands.

In a press release announcing a FAS report claiming nuclear weapons "are surprisingly prominent in both the planning and command structure" in the administration's new national security plan ? the group's vice president of strategic security says, "The United States cannot argue that Iran should give up its nuclear ambitions while advocating an aggressive strategy for pre-emptive use of American nuclear weapons."

FAS concedes the strategy is "primarily a non-nuclear mission."
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
I was wondering why DTB wouldn't answer what economic freedom is - but here's the definition - I'm not sure they even know what it's for

____________________________________________

"My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.1

Freedom. Liberty. "Free at last!" Just words, or the essence of humanity? We hold this truth to be self-evident; freedom is a fundamental piece of being. We strive for it, we nurture it, we yearn for it, we die in quest of it, and we ache to our bones when it is denied. No chronology or treatise could ever hope to discuss all aspects of liberty. The force of freedom, whatever exactly it is, is too powerful for simple recitation. Here we do not hope to expand the domain of thoughts about freedom. Our goal here is more direct: to measure economic freedom and study how people react to it.

About five years ago several scholars at Clemson University decided to investigate the link, if any,
between economic freedom and economic activity in the United States.2 There was a tried-and-true technique of creating indexes of freedom across countries and across time, but the effort then was the first attempt to examine the impact of economic freedom on life inside the United States.3

Our purpose here is to update and refine the original 1999 Clemson University study on economic freedom.

We undertake the analysis with up-to-date data, and we add several new measures of economic freedom across the states. As in the earlier study, our method attemptsto remove a level of subjectivity common in most discussions of freedom, namely, what exactly is freedom?

There are basically two ways to assess or assign levels of freedom across time or space. One is a subjective determination of the factors that wisdom suggests constitute liberty. For example, the Bill of Rights is a proud and prominent declaration of certain freedoms. One could start from these and then build a framework or matrix of freedom based on sound principles and accumulated wisdom. This is a fine way to measure freedom, and it makes for powerful analysis. There is only one problem: this technique is the result of one person's thinking or a group's conclusion.

Individuals do not have to agree on every aspect of freedom. Consider the simple problem of marriage. A man and a woman enter into a contract "to have and to hold from this day forward, to love and to cherish.. " Are they more or less free? Do land covenants make people less free? Yes and no. Therein lies the issue. Freedom is best viewed through the eyes of the beholder. People might agree to a point, but there is no single universally accepted definition. There is, however, an alternative approach.

The one taken here appears agnostic on the surface, but is actually a market-based definition. This technique creates measures of freedom, indexes, and then searches across them, finding the one that best maps into actual human behavior that is arguably driven by freedom.

Our index offers the clear advantage that it is evaluated in the marketplace, by the actual decisions people make about where to live. Our technique works and measures what we want it to: economic freedom as seen through the eyes of ordinary people.

If we see people climbing the Berlin Wall, swimming the Florida Straights, or applying for visas to live in the United States, we can, to some extent, claim that these people are "in search of freedom."4 Therefore, we adopt a migration metric for economic freedom. If people are moving from one state to another, other things equal, we assert and believe that this is a market-based response to differences in freedom.

As President Reagan said, and we believe it is the essence of the correct way to measure freedom using market tests, "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" What else could Reagan have meant except freedom is the right to live where one wishes. People define freedom by voting with their feet.

In summary, our method uses the classical approach of using our judgment to compile a list of relevant indicator variables for economic freedom. These indicators are then converted into a number of indexes using various techniques. We then compare each index to the others in terms of its ability to explain human migration, other things the same. The best index is then used to rank the U.S. states in terms of economic freedom.


Our index is our best estimate of the state rankings. We have employed our judgment, and we do not claim it is perfect. We have at every junction made what we think is the right decision about what is free and what is not. Our index offers the clear advantage that it is evaluated in the marketplace, by the actual decisions people make about where to live. Our technique works and measures what we want it to: economic freedom as seen through the eyes of ordinary people.
Economic freedom is the right of
individuals to pursue their interests through voluntary exchange of private property
under a rule of law, and this freedom forms the foundation of all market economies.

We can note that this approach is Rawlsian in nature.5 If a system is just and fair, and people value these things, as we believe they do, then migration is a proper measure of one social implication of differences in economic freedom."
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
directions on explanation of US Economic Freedom Index--

A: find google search
B: type in US Economic Freedom Index
C: hit enter
D: read the link of your choice or all of them

if that is too tough--click on link below ;)

http://www.google.com/search?source...D:2003-49,GGLD:en&q=US+Economic+Freedom+Index

as a test to make sure this technique is mastered maybe someone could do search on states leading in crime and aids and report back to us--:)
 
Last edited:

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
directions on explanation of US Economic Freedom Index--

A: find google search
B: type in US Economic Freedom Index
C: hit enter
D: read the link of your choice or all of them

if that is too tough--click on link below



Unfortunately, the source of this study is a highly partisan group so I would take the results with a grain of salt.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
"Unfortunately, the source of this study is a highly partisan group so I would take the results with a grain of salt."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is it? Since you didn't put up source I will. ;)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

Amusing your posting from every liberal blog site there is and now say "take think with grain of salt because you 'think" might be from partisan site".

Hmm Reminds of your Senator Kennedy complaining about Gw's DUI and calling him a criminal :)
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
DOGS THAT BARK said:
"
Hmm Reminds of your Senator Kennedy complaining about Gw's DUI and calling him a criminal :)

Kennedys past doesn't make what he said about Bush any less true.
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
Very interesting. The Index of Economic Freedom as explained at Wiki's site:

There are several versions of the Index (WSJ, Heritage, etc.). Heritage's index measures how countries score on a list of 50 independent variables. They include:

1. Corruption in the judiciary, customs service, and government bureaucracy;
2. Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as import bans and quotas as well as strict labeling and licensing requirements;
3. The fiscal burden of government, which encompasses income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and trends in government expenditures as a percent of output;
4. The rule of law, efficiency within the judiciary, and the ability to enforce contracts;
5. Regulatory burdens on business, including health, safety, and environmental regulation;
6. Restrictions on banks regarding financial services, such as selling securities and insurance;
7. Labor market regulations, such as established work weeks and mandatory separation pay; and
8. Informal market activities, including corruption, smuggling, piracy of intellectual property rights, and the underground provision of labor and other services.

These are divided into 10 broad factors of economic freedom: Trade policy, Fiscal burden of government, Government intervention in the economy, Monetary policy, Capital flows and foreign investment, Banking and finance, Wages and prices, Property rights, Regulation, and Informal market activity.

The higher a country's score on a factor the less economic freedom there is. The 10 factors are given equal weight in determining the final score. Depending on their score, countries are then separated into four categories: Free, Mostly Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed.

I find it curious that most of the factors have to do with laws regulating business. The fewer the laws, the greater the economic freedom. So, an unfettered marketplace makes us all more free?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top