FBI, IRS Raid Home of Sen. Ted Stevens 539
A while back we discussed the corruption investigation aimed at Alaska Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens. A number of readers sent us word that the home of Sen. Stevens was raided earlier today by agents of the FBI and the IRS. The focus of the raid was a remodeling project at Stevens's home and the involvement of VECO, an oil company.
The same man... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also describing them as "bridges to nowhere" is somewhat like describing the first Transcontinental Railroad as a "railroad to nowhere". One of the bridges in question was probably a pointless waste of money, the other would have connected a city of 300,000 people and skyrocketing property prices to a large area of undeveloped land.
It may also be instructive to note that Ben Stevens (the son of Ted Stevens, and another alaskan po
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see. And this second bridge, unlike the first, is a not a bridge to "nowhere" because it connects to a large area of
Thanks for clarifying.
We wouldn't want the real estate developers to have to finance their own development. Nosiree! That's what hard working american men and women are for... to finance real estate development that they'd never be able to afford themselves.
Go to hell, much? Thanks, bye.
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it is common for developers to offer to pay for part or all of the infrastructure. They have a financial incentive for the development to proceed, and infrastructure costs are often the biggest disincentive for city governments. So developers do what they can to minimize or eliminate that cost for cities.
While it may make one feel better to "stick it to the developers" by making them pay for the additional infrastructure, the truth is that they don't pay for it. The people buying the new housing or office space do. The costs just get passed onto them in the form of increased prices, home association fees, property taxes, and/or mello-roos [wikipedia.org].So since the people are going to be paying for it anyway, the question then becomes how do you apportion the cost. One line of reasoning is that the people buying in the new development should pay for it since they are the primary beneficiaries. Another line of reasoning is that everyone should pay because the people in the currently existing city are secondary beneficiaries (less crowding, access to facilities in the new development, more choice in living/working area, etc). The fairest solution is probably a combination of the two. But the point is that making taxpayers pay for it isn't as ludicrous as you're making it out to be; taxpayers are the eventual beneficiaries and they end up paying for it in the end anyway. The logistics of how you make them pay for it is just a matter of shifting responsibility for obtaining the funding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this is what the developer would like to have you believe. The reality is not that simple.
Certainly the cost of infrastructure increases the developer's expenses. But your assertion, which is that the buyer ultimately pays for this, relies on the fallacious assumption that the developer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is a job for government... But not the Federal Government.
Do you not understand between the roles and responsibilities of the State and Federal government? This is clearly something that falls under the jurisdiction of the state of Alaska unless of course this is an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that Hawaii has benefited from federal money at some point. If you tried to make the case that no money should be spend unless every single citizen can be shown to have a tangible benefit, you'd never get anything done.
That's an extreme position. There are certainly some types of local-to-hawaii projects for which the majority of federal taxpayers would benefit. For example, all of the military related spending there.
But a bridge that goes to an as yet undeveloped area really isn't going to benefit anyone in a different state and ought to be the provenance of state and or city tax dollars, not federal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm from New Jersey. For every $1 we send to the government, we get about $0.63 back. We get the least back from the federal government of all the states. Alaska is on the other end of the scale, getting back about $1.80 for each dollar they s
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that the transcontinental railroad wasn't a "railroad to nowhere". But it wasn't built 20 years after "millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.". Fewer than half a million people moved to the West Coast during the emigration period from about 1840-1860.
The difference is... (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Early railroad made its big bucks less from transporting people, and more by transporting goods and raw materials for the industry. In fact passengers were often the necessary evil: you wouldn't get a permit to build a railroad if you didn't haul the people too.
Hence just counting how many people were there, is highly misleading. The west was by and large the captive market and source of cheap raw materials for the east coast, in much the same way as India was to England. Building a railroad there made sense.
B) Railroads were a _major_ strategic asset for the army. I don't think these bridges to nowhere count as that.
B) More importantly, railroads were built by private capital, because they were profitable. That's a freakin' huge difference between that and pork barrel contracts to at most please a village on an island.
The laissez faire capitalism of the 19'th century was pretty vehemently against using government money on something that competed with private initiative. Plus, the government didn't even have that kind of money anyway.
I must admit, though: That doctrine was often taken to absurd extremes, such as in England where, when they _had_ to support their own population in a crisis or famine... because they couldn't just give money to people (they thought it would compete with the employment market) or build something useful (it would have competed with private industry), they paid the people to build some useless stuff like roads from nowhere to nowhere (literally, unconnected, in the middle of a field) or useless towers or such. But even then, it must be said that it was only in times of extreme necessity, instead of social security. And it was openly useless stuff. Even in its stupidity, it just wasn't the same thing.
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that even though this may be an insignificant number to people accustomed to the over crowded cities of the lower 48, this city's population is half the population of the state. Alaska [wikipedia.org] may be 2.5 times larger than Texas, however our largest population center is land locked by military bases, the Cook Inlet [wikipedia.org], and the Chugach State Park. The bridge to nowhere [wikipedia.org] would reduce a two hour one way commute to just a few minutes from the currently under developed land to downtown Anchorage.
I saw a few posts that talked about the state paying Alaskans every year. The one to two grand paid by the state PFD [wikipedia.org] does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 (just went on the market a few days ago).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000
A middle income family needs to buy 1.5 acres for their home? In a major population centre? For what? No wonder there is no room left in the city. The traditional Aussie 1/4 acre suburban lot has proven to be more than enough for most families, which would bring the cost down to (roughly) $125k, and that's not an outrageous amount.
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Informative)
Now lets compare this to say, many other American cities. Anchorage has an "Owner-occupied housing units" rate of 60%, which is among the highest in the country (again, areaconnect.com/statistics.htm says that Tucson is 53%, Oklahoma City is close at 59%, Las Vegas is also 59%, Orlando is 40.7%, Boston is 32%, Syracuse is 40%, Dallas is 43%, Los Angeles is 38%, Manchester NH is 46%). So this tells me that people are having less of a hard time achieving home ownership in Anchorage than just about any other part of the country.
I'm not trying to flame you as I am sure many people there go through the same struggles as elsewhere, but just trying to put everything into a bit of perspective. Anchorage isn't the $40k housing market some people in the lower 48 might expect, but it seems easier to achieve personal home ownership there than most other urban cities in the country. I suspect if you start to consider suburbs, just like any other city, the numbers skew much differently.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I wouldn't dispute that it's their money by most reasonable definitions. I think that most people would agree. The reason they point it out, though, is that it seems pretty clear that for projects like that, a lot of people seem to think that their local contribution should
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually Congress that is in charge of determining the federal budget, not the president!!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, it's not a matter of who was President and who was in Congress, it's a matter of who sponsred and pushed for tax reductions and fiscal restraint.
In the 80's, Ronald Reagan and the GOP Minority pushed for overall tax reductions and reductions in spending. Reagan was able to successfully use the Presidential Bully Pulpit to push through some tax reform and reduction, leading to an economic boom in the mid to late eighties. Unfortunately, the spending reductions he wanted were largely not implemented, as Congress controls the purse strings in the Federal Government. Because spending was still so high in the early nineties when Bush Sr. (a fiscally liberal republican) came to office, the economy took a downturn when we fought the first Iraq war and he broke a campaign promise by raising taxes.
After Bush was voted out in the early nineties and Clinton was voted in during the post Iraq-war years, the economy slowly recovered. However, Clinton and the Democrat controlled congress enacted the single largest tax increase in American history shortly after the beginning of his term, further slowing economic improvement. This (along with Clinton's failed intervention in Somalia) caused a major turnover in the makeup of Congress in the 1994 elections, resulting in a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. The GOP in Congress immediately set about reversing and eliminating all the tax and spending increases set in place by Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems. Clinton was beginning to be embroiled in scandal already at this point, and so was too politically weak to oppose the GOP. The tax reductions passed, and within 2 years the economy was booming. At about the same time the Dot Com bubble was happening, and this only served to accelerate the economy even more.
Oddly, despite his public opposition to the tax and spending reductions, Clinton still got the credit for a booming economy he had basically nothing to do with. By the time the economy was really rolling along, Clinton was so embroiled in scandal that he had taken to bombing "terrorists" (read, aspirin factories) in Africa to try and take some of the public scrutiny off himself. He was basically signing anything that came across his desk, as he was hardly involved at all in the political process.
The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies. However, there are many who think that both GWB and the GOP have largely abandoned their conservative economic roots in favor of liberal style big-government spending. This is what cost the GOP the 2006 elections, and has seriously slowed our economic recovery since then. While overall we are doing well, we could have been much further ahead had GWB and the GOP acted more Reagan-esqe, and less Clinton-esqe in their fiscal policy.
So credit belongs to those who push for economic reform. Reagan rightly deserves the credit for the 80's, Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems deserve the credit for the slump in the early nineties, and the GOP deserves the credit for the boom in the mid to late nineties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(read: war)
The economic 'recovery' can be attributed to the wars and all the government contracts going out to the various companies that support it. This includes arms makers, construction, fire crews, mercenaries, and all that garbage that comes with it. And to top it off, while the economy is doin
Low dollar not necessarily bad (Score:3)
The low value of the dollar against other currencies is not necessarily a bad thing. We've had a huge trade deficit for years now importing all sorts of luxury items from overseas. Note that we don't import a lot of food though. So the benefit of a weak dollar against other currencies is that while we may have to cut back on some inessential purchases, we won't be starving to death since within the country the dollar is relative to itself. We also might start exporting more goods and services than we ha
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why not build it with your own/your wife's family/the city's money instead of mine?
Nephilium
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Funny)
Nice to know it is cheaper to buy a corrupt senator than a bridge. Supply and demand comes to our rescue again.
Re:The same man... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The same man... (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, you're right. On the other, you clearly don't know much about the realities of economic development in Alaska. Most of Alaska is wilderness. To develop modern local economies, modern "conveniences" like roads and docks and harbors are required. And in a wilderness those projects are incredibly expensive. Count the number of towns in Alaska. Then count the number of towns with roads connecting them.
Yes, Alaska receives many barrels filled with pig meat. Yes, that kind of investment is the deciding factor in the future sustainability of the state (and all the people in it). Everyone knows the oil and gas won't last forever. By the time that money is gone, Alaska either needs to have a sustainable economy or a population that still knows all the old subsistence ways. Halfway between the two will be a disaster.
Cruise ships make or break communities. If the ships come, you win. If the ships don't come, you lose. The cruise companies wield that power in ways that would make you cringe even if your business didn't rely on them. In this and other ways, Alaska *isn't* a reasonable place - it's a strange sort of modern frontier. That's not just marketing jargon. Go visit the Bush.
I went to a tiny bush village in Alaska with a big chip on my shoulder against Ted Stevens. I lived there for three years. I saw why people keep voting for him. It's not usually greed. Sometimes it's self-preservation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He actually believes that his email is stuck somewhere waiting for days because of people downloading movies, and is basing legislation on that belief.
I don't have the mechanical skills to rebuild my car, but neither do I propose a laws to dictate how the experts do it.
You explain technology to the masses... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You explain technology to the masses... (Score:5, Funny)
Burn in hell, Joe Sixpack.
Hey Ted (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow, assuming he doesn't simply die of old age before this case were to work its way through the system, appeals, and all that jazz, I think they'll end up playing the health card to keep him out of prison.
Please don't joke about prison ass-rape. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
of course not, unless it happens to a clown.
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:5, Funny)
As long as anybody who gets raped also gets a free TV, that's logical.
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a prisoner to come out who is neither predator nor preyed upon and who is ready to rejoin society in a responsible manner, then their prison sentences need to be spent in a way that furthers that goal. That means that their prison life needs to be as close to normal as possible. That includes education and job training to enable them to live productively on the outside.
I really don't think anyone should be released from jail or prison until they at least have a GED.
Make prison life reasonably normal instead of a concrete jungle with life threatening dangers at every turn and you will save a lot of money as well because of the reduction in the costs of keeping a prisoner there and because of a lower recividsm rate afterwards.
People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.
Re:That's why its called Prison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see some figures to back that up, please. Every article I've read on the subject seem to think that the US federal government spends more per capita on health care than any other. That's the government, not the poor saps who can find themselves bankrupt from hospital bills because they were unlucky enough to get sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're talking about situations where someone's food is repeatedly being stolen by other prisoners or something, nobody's starving.
But yeah, they're probably being ass-raped and beaten, so being well-fed is probably small comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
> Jeez, what do you want in Prison, Club Med?
What do you think the reaction would be if a large percentage of the prisoners captured in Iraq were ass-raped?
Re:Hey Ted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The lingo part was jokable, but the implications that he had no idea what he was talking about and still debating it in a political arena as a politician was the part that was disturbing and not defendable.
Re:Hey Ted (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no logical reason he is the head of the telecommunications committee. One would think the head of a technologically based committee would at least understand the technology. Instead we get a corrupt old fool who can't even function as an effective mouthpiece for the various industries who pay to keep their parrot in power. So instead of a technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure in this country we're stuck with crap like tubes & trucks analogies, Sen. Ted wanting to be able to port his landline # to his cell phone with the flip of a switch so he can answer calls to that number while riding his motorcycle and him calling for full internet filtering to ban child pornography so the kids don't get targeted by pedophiles.
Let's break those three gems from your corrupt hero, shall we?
No, the internet isn't a truck. It isn't a series of tubes, either. It's a distributed packet switched network. That's not too hard to say, now is it?
Who in the hell would ask for a landline switch so he could talk on his cell phone using his home number while riding his motorcycle? Last time I checked it took two hands to control a motorcycle...you know that whole steering, braking, throttle, and clutch system motorcycles have. Who cares if Teddy runs over a bunch of innocent kids as long as he can talk on his phone!
Speaking of those innocent kids, explain to me how blocking pictures of child pornography is going to keep predators from trying to solicit children online? The two items aren't directly related. There's also those sticky issues of a nationwide internet filter being both simultaneously uninforceable and UNCONSTITUIONAL. Of course the legality of the idea and the fact that it's been shot down on numerous other occasions (COPA I and II, anyone?) won't stop pork-barrel Ted from wasting our tax dollars in an ultimately failed attempt to get the thing to a vote.
And now, on top of this it turns out he got the square footage of his house doubled as a bribe from an oil industry insider who was convicted of bribing officials. Who cares about laws and regulations when it means a bigger rumpus room?!
Seriously, how can you respect that man? He's as corrupt as the day is long. Or, do you just respect the money he's been taking away from the national interest and funneling to you all these years?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about the dividend, that is NOT your tax dollars. That is earnings from a state investment fund comprised of a portion of Alaska's portion of oil royalty receipts. And Ted Stevens has nothing to do with that and no more say in it (officially) than any other Alaskan.
Not defending him,
Re:Hey Ted (Score:4, Insightful)
Because America has become a very conservative and frankly sexually repressed nation, and pedophiles are the boogeyman that government uses to justify absolutely anything they want. Terrorism is another.
Sounds good to me. Sex offenders should be permitted to have porn with no restrictions that any other group of adults (and frankly, probably even groups of children) do. We should not be legislating morality, and we should not be treating different groups of people worse than any others--even if they are the dreaded p-word. If you're complaining about early release, then you have a problem with the parole system and it has nothing at all to do with constitutionality, pedophilia or whether or not pictures of little kids should be illegal. (I presume you mean sexually explicit pictures--though you never say that, which I think just goes to show exactly how effective this particular boogeyman is.)
While we're at it, I think sex offender registries should be unconstitutional. I think the "sex offenders can't live within 100 miles of a school, library or park" laws should be unconstitutional as well. When you get out of jail, your punishment should be OVER. You've served your debt to society. If that's not true, then let's simply never release these people to begin with--though I think you're going to be hard-pressed to explain why they shouldn't be released when sex offenders' rate of recidivism isn't very high.
I don't want to see children abused sexually, so you can put the brakes on that particular ad hominem retort right now. I'm simply not willing to single out groups of people for harsher, increasingly worse and unending punishment because society happens to think their crimes are particularly bad, and I am not willing to trample anybody's rights after their release AT ALL, much less in a vain attempt to prevent recidivism.
More than anything we, as a society, need to figure out what the hell prison is for. Punishment and deterrence are well and good, but since the majority of criminals DO end up getting out eventually there needs to be much more focus on rehabilitation. And politicians need to stop throwing people under the bus to show they're "tough on crime."
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious? (Score:2)
Nice Line from Stevens (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious question is: What about the bills that weren't sent to you?
To me, that seems to be the heart of the investigation.
Re:Nice Line from Stevens (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't look good for Ted.
Taxes (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think I'll make it as far as Alaksa. Probably stop in British Columbia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government doesn't "pay" us to live here (I live in Juneau, Alaska). The people receive a portion of the proceeds from the exploitation of our primary natural resource, oil; which is only fair, considering it's our resource. Fran
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Funny)
But as an Inuit, don't you get upset that the other Americans call it "their" resource?
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously! (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously ?
Seriously.
The money collected from other sources (notably north slope oil pumping and transport) are far more than the state government needs for its own function.
Rather than finding new ways to waste it, the more-than-slightly libertarian-leaning politicians decided to do away with other taxes - notably income and property tax.
But they still had a big surplus. So they decided to distribute it to the citizens. Even a libertarian can support this as a move in the right direction, since most of the money comes from selling off a resource "owned in common by the citizens of the state". If the government sells it, the citizen-owners should each get their share of the proceeds, right?
He's the victim. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a series of tubes! (Score:2)
It's not a truck! ... (Score:5, Funny)
Need to change campaign laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there is still a problem with private companies (RNC/DNC) taking money and publishing ads on behalf of a candidate without actually giving the money to a candidate. And if you try and limit their rights, then that whole pesky First Amendment thing gets in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no, because you address that by rectifying another egregious aspect of our current political/
legal system: treating corporations as individuals. If Monsanto cannot serve 10 years for manslaughter,
it's not a person.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I should be permitted to give money to only those candidates I am allowed to vote for.
Unfortunately campaign contributions are only part of the problem. Restricting contributions does nothing to reduce expenditures, which can be made by anyone. So instead of contributing directly to Sen. Stevens campaign, EvilCorp can simply spend its own money running advertisements, perhaps as part of a group such as "Concerned Evil Corporations For America".
Moneyed interests will always be able to get around campai
how funny (Score:5, Insightful)
What we really need is to end "Politician"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Too Bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't US Senators have an appreciable amount of immunity from any real criminal prosecution, anyway? I don't know for certain. That's only what I recall from $somewhere. That could be wrong.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html [usconstitution.net] ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
"The Senators and Representatives
I wouldn't call that "appreciable" in any sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Casting them all on the take is disingenous (Score:2)
I find it odd to be defending some of these people, but indeed there are a strong number/percentage that don't take bribes, don't push their own projects in legislation, aren't on the take, have asked for campaign funding reform, and actually have a real heart-- and even a few that didn't vote for the war (
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even those that damn everyone with one brush.
You can't play on my guilt. I don't give a shit.
If they didn't know that the system was corrupt to the core before they ran for office then they sure as hell should've figured it out during the campaign process. Anyone who actually accepted the office, somehow convincing themselves that they could change something, deserves to be painted with the brush--if not for actual exploitation of their position then for the naivete which indirectly supports the position of those who do abuse their priveleges.
This isn't about your guilt, rather mistake (Score:2)
Instead, you purport that that 95% of (let's call them elected officials and other government types) have innate "naivete which indirectly supports the position of those who do abuse their priveleges(sic)."
In fact, you're presumptuous and have come to an incorrect conclusion from that presumption. I've been on the Hill, and started with a very sanguine view of the net results of elected official's output. I found many of my sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod this down. I'm killing this account anyway. I'll just use one of the several dozen others.
Re: (Score:2)
U
Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt (Score:2)
Actually, yes, it does.
We've got Congressmen, as well as many lesser bureaucrats, dropping left and right from scandals. Corporations are buying laws. We keep getting involved in Middle East conflicts for stupid reasons.
Do you seriously think no one's trying to screw the country over when dozens of people have been exposed trying to do just that?
Re:Conspiracy nutjob Ron Paul was Re:Power corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
It is depressing to me that the media spins him as some psycho conspiracy nut and even more that people believe it. In the meantime we readily cheer on our warhawks who dodged the service and then vote for war, and then call those who served a full 20 cowards for voting against it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My wifes college loan is now 7%! Fasfa paid for her college totally before I married her when her exhusband made more money. Now I am finishing school with less money and fasfa can't afford to pay for all of it. I need 2k every semester and work fulltime while I go to school.
Now the government under Bush is in record debt and the biggest it ever has. Hmmm
The state
Re:Power corrupts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More money for the wealthy means lower interest rates so businesses can hire more and expand as loans become cheap. It also helps joe sixpack refinance his home which goes up in value as more can afford. Infact the housing hike that hit so much of the nation was because of Clinton's low interest rate policy borrowed from republicans.
What happened in the 1920's was the result of unregulated loans f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The stock market exploding is not the sign of a healthy economy. Its more the sign of a bubble than anything else. Note it also exploded in the 1920s. The anti-inflation was a result of the work of Paul Vocker and the FED, not Reganomics. Regan also caused the 2nd largest defecit spending in US history (second only to Bush II), which we're still paying interest on today. Pretty short sighted
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, what? I assume you are talking about the crash of '87 (I am amazed how many people have forgotten about it). So let me see, Jan 2nd, 1986 the DJIA closes at $1549.20, we have Black Monday and close at 1,738.74 on October 19th, 1987 (still over 12% above the Jan '86 close!!!). On October 30th, 1987, the DJIA closed at 1,993.53, where is your depression?! What kind of crack are yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, you have an old, corrupt fool who doesn't even understand what the word "internet" means and on the other hand you have a guy who may reasonably be called one of the most visionary mainstream politicians of our time, given his proactive, leading-edge involvement in both the internet and environmental issues.
Thanks for getting that infamous Gore quote straight. Here's a little more info from Snopes:
I think the worst you can say about Gore's involvement with the internet is that he played an instrumental role in transforming it from an academic/military tool into the thing that you and I are arguing on right now. However you want to describe it, it's no small accomplishment.
Now compare that to Ted Stevens' accomplishments. ...chirp... ...chirp... ...chirp...
By the way, since Gore was "involved in plenty of scandals", you should have no problem citing them and recounting whether or not he was vindicated.