"....why would he be on a committee whose hearings are in secret - and whose work he can't talk about."

To use this line as support that Wyden isn't a publicity seeker is very shallow. ALL politicians are publicity seekers.

To refresh your revisionist memory, please see the Wall Street Journal editorial of 12/13/2004 as they say, Ron wyden spoke on the Senate floor, who discussed a top-secret program that he learned of via his association with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

His comments about this classifed program are public record.

He has brought up "secret" topics provided they are politically useful.

Torrid,

time for a cup of decaf.

Nowhere in my post did I say he named the program. I stated that he discussed a top-secret program, which he did. The people who vote on the program are the committee he's on. They heard his concerns in committee. His statement was to those who did not have a direct vote on the program.

Typical liberal playbook. If you don't get what you want, make a public display.

By the way TJ, you appear to be a sincere and intelligent person. Don't degrade your posts with so much emotion. You catch more flies with honey....

Cut-and-paste Davey always amazes. My favorite quote today about the SLAUGHTER in Haditha is "Never mind the actual facts of the matter".

The Marines admit it happened. They have relieved all the soldiers involved.

The Pentagon confirms to Rep. Murtha that the slaughter happened, only there were TWICE as many innocent victims.

The Iraqi villagers say it happened and an Iraqi journalist shot video of the 24 or 25 Iraqis still in their bedclothes with their bodies riddled with MADE IN USA bullets.

But Cut-and-paste Davey, THE UNDISPUTED COWARD OF THE COUNTY, says never mind the facts.

I wonder how Davey would feel if the big, bad Marines stormed into his Eastmoreland manse and murdered his darling daughter in cold blood as he used her as a human shield because he is so afraid to die?

Sid,

your last sentence is so out of touch with common decency.

If the Marines slaughtered innocents then that is abhorrent and they should receive their due punishment. I know it's a foreign concept to you, but maybe we can actually let them be tried in court, rather than the media.

To end your post with the "big, bad Marines" and .."used her as a human shield because he is so afried to die?" if off the charts.

You insult an honorable organization and pass judgement on a man by using a ridiculous situation.

The Oregonian has asked many of its writers and editors and photographers to go to Iraq. Most go. Davey Reinhard refuses to go and cover the biggest story of the century, in his own words.

As a former network news producer, who has covered stories around the world, I get to call a coward a coward, in the name of the nearly 100 journalists who have died in Iraq for Davey's right to cower under his desk in Portland, refusing to cover the Story of the Century!

You'll have to accept my appologies.

I didn't realize you used to be a news producer. Wow!

You are correct. Ex-news producers have most certainly acheived the wisdom of Solomon and are worthy to assign labels. You've earned it sid.

As such, I retract my previous post.

Your outlandish comments about the Marines and Dave Reinhard are completely spot on.

Your pedigree as a deep thinker and wordsmith must explain why none of the other Liberals who frequent this sight found your comments over the top.

My bad.

Would you two take the pissing match offline, please? Jeepers.

Torridjoe's analogy is more precise than mine. Agreed.

My point was armchair chickenhawks like Davey are traitors to our nation because they do not (and can not) see the other side of the war. Europe, Asia and South America know the war is lost and that is why they are not there. Where's the Middle East nations? Not there, either.

I've traveled the world a bit since 9/11 and the intense public hatred toward the U.S. government in Europe and South America is stunning and a bit scary. Reinhard contributes to that hatred, which was PURE LOVE FOR THE USA on 9/12/01.

But W, being the world renowned sh!t magnet he is, heck, it was even his mama's nickname for him in Midland, snatched complete defeat from the jaws of victory as pregnant Iraqi women are slaughtered in their car on the way to a doctor's appointment. AFTER Haditha.

Yes Kari,

that's right. I am a silly little Rep troll. I'm part of the bumbling group of red state rednecks that by the sheer force of our own silliness, just happened to win two Presidential elections and take majority positions in the Senate & Congress.

You've discovered the secret to we intellectual lightweights: just poke us and we go away.

I'll let you go now. Your husband is probably home cooking dinner for you right now. Don't let the food get cold.

Excuse the typos,

Signed,

Silly (diverse opinions net welcomed) Troll

Did those "irresponsible tax cuts" help create the RECORD HIGH $883 million "Oregon Kicker" tax refund that Governor Kulo would like to spend?

Mmmmm. If you decrease Federal tax rates, then the States collect more taxes?

Carla:

Oregon's State Economist would beg to differ: a cut in the capital gains tax is THE PRIMARY REASON this year's tax revenue were so much higher than anticipated.

Tom Potiowski is quoted

"Their decisions about whether to sell their investments have a volatile effect on income from the state capital gains tax"

The Federal Capital Gains tax was 42% during the Clinton years: now it's 15%. Guess what: many more people are willing to sell their investments (and pay 15%) in Federal Capital gains tax than were willing to pay 42%. Much of those net proceeds are reinvested in real estate, stocks, and municipal (schools, roads, bridges, sewers, etc) bonds which in turn provides new capital to those kinds of assets. Have you heard something about a real estate boom? It used to be you only got a single "lifetime" exemption on the sale of your primary residence: now it resets every two years. You really don't believe some of the housing gains should be attributed to a rational decision about how much capital gains tax they are willing to pay?

If anyone here is still confused, GW is quite possibly the worst president ever. If you don't think so, you're puting party before country, and you're not paying attention.

Any soldier would tell you that something like Haditha only happens in a vaccuum of leadership and training. Or, I dunno, serving 2 or 3 consecutive tours in Iraq. It would send anyone over the edge. Why don't we implicate Bush and Cheney for this? Ultimately, aren't they to blame for this very vietnam-like war?

Carla,

take a look at the following links. Un-employment numbers were released today showing a 4.6% level of un-employment. This is a very low number.

Congratulations to the twice elected President Bush on having the foresight to push through tax cuts and improve the incentive for the private economy to flourish and creat more jobs.

A second round of congrats goes to former President Bill Clinton for getting the ball rolling 10 years ago with his round of capital gains tax cuts and welfare reforms that laid the foundation for GW to build upon. President Clinton was actually much more of a conservative Republican (in fiscal action) then GW.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

http://www.treas.gov/economic-plan/charts/index.shtml

Oh, one more thing Carla, have you wondered why the Federal Reserve has raised short-term interest rates 16 straight times?

The answer, to save you the energy, is because they are concerned the economy is too strong. Too strong of any economy can lead to an unwanted level of inflation. When it comes to the economy, you can't just abort it because it is unwanted.

If you doubt this (please don't take my word for it) please ask any trusted, certified, Blue Oregon economist as to reason the Fed has been raising short-term rates.

"Un-employment numbers were released today showing a 4.6% level of un-employment. This is a very low number. "

First of all, the number is cooked. If you stop looking for work in a monitored manner, you are magically "employed". If you work a crappy, part-time (read:Wal-Mart Style)low income job-- you are considered fully employed. And even if that number is close to reality and jobs creation is barely keeping up with the number of jobs needed just to employ the newbies in the work force (150K per month)-- both a big if--it doesn't matter to most of us because of the QUALITY of the jobs being offered.

No doubt the overall economy is strong-- it has been for several years-- but those gains are ending up in the hands of only the wealthiest in this country thanks to the tax cuts you so love. Hey, if I was wealthy maybe I'd be crowing about this, but most of us are just middle class and we know that the strong economy has meant little for us in either job creation or wage increases.

And, by the way, those welfare reforms you mentioned saved a drop in the bucket of the budget and helped create a whole slew of wage slavers without actually addressing the real issues of the people involved.

Trickledown economics is as lame a concept as it sounds and it doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Hiya Dan J.

Today's Fed numbers show job increases DOWN, wage increases DOWN, and no more interest rate hikes cuz economy is cooling off. New Gallup Poll shows four percent of USA thinks the economy is doing great (that'd be you), 25 percent say it's good and THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY says the economy sucks or sucks worse.

Time to upgrade that subscription to the Washington Times, Dan, the only communist-owned newspaper in America and the first read at the White House.

Supply-side economics, which George H.W. Bush famously referred to as "voo-doo" econmics, is a con used to sell irresponsible tax cuts for the rich that do not increase real revenue and have always created massive deficits. In reality, these irresponsible tax cuts are little more than a return on the investment made by corporate America and the hyper rich when they contribute to Republican campaigns. Forget Wall Street, under the "leadership" of George W. Bush and the, er hmm, conservative congress, contributing to a Republican is the highest yield investment going. K Street is where the "investments" really pay off. The Republicans should start every session of congress with a NYSE-like bell and a ticker tape of each member's current price.

Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman summed it up best when he said that supply-side economics has been and always will be "hokum for the yokels."

It certainly works on meatsticks like DanJ and David Reinhard.

Which brings me to my original reason for posting. Could anyone out there help me with a bet? I was wondering what color is the sand that Reinhard's head is buried in. Is it that nice white stuff in Florida? Or is that coal black stuff in more exotic locals? Or is that sandy, gravelly grit mix found around our mountain lakes?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Mr. Caird:

Where do you think the extra $883 million of Oregon Tax Revenues came from? Oregon income tax rates are unchanged, and I don't think the Governor's been able to open any new casinos (yet). There's only four possible sources of rising tax revenue:

A. Increased sales tax revenue (lottery, liquor, tobacco, & fuel) B. Increased capital gains (investors realizing larger profits) C. Rising incomes D. Governor Kulongoski's economic miracle.

Answer choice A is clearly the most regressive tax (and is the easiest to project accurately). The largest contributors to the revenue surplus are B. and C. Answer D. is a joke: if you think Kulogonski is actually out there "creating" jobs, then you're beyond help.

You can hate the rich if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that EVERYBODY benefits from increased movement of capital from dormant assets (that they've owned many years) to new assets (which somebody has to build/manufacture, serve, or broker).

Do you remember the "luxury tax" on boats? Ever wonder why it was repealed?

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. --President John F. Kennedy, 1963

as the Cato Institute observed in 1995, the capital gains tax is different from almost all other forms of federal taxation in that it is a voluntary tax. Since the tax is paid only when an asset is sold, taxpayers can legally avoid payment by holding on to their assets--a phenomenon known as the "lock-in effect."

In a dynamic market economy, it is impossible to point to a single factor (like the capital gains tax cut), and attribute "x" amount of additional revenue to it. Why? Because all of the other factors (global business cycle, foreign trade, direct foreign investment, fiscal and monetary policies, etc.) were changing all the while.

Nevertheless, we know that 2005 and (YTD) 2006 were lackluster years for the major stock market indexes, and we also know that Oregon's income tax rates (which are the same as Oregon's capital gains tax rates) have not changed. What has changed? A continued boom in real estate, and a continuation of the Federal capital gains tax cut passed in 2003. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Oregonians were more willing to pay 15% Federal capital gains tax than the previous 35%? I believe many Oregonians have realized that 15% federal (plus another 9% payable to the State of Oregon) is relatively "cheap".

Here's the PDF file which seeks to answer your question.

Knowing you are unlikely to accept the findings of the ""Bush Treasury Department" here's a study which challenges their findings

Here's a 2001 study from Connerly Consulting that hypothesizes how a reduction in Oregon's capital gains tax would impact Oregon tax revenues. It seems plausible that many people viewed the Federal tax reduction as very attractive, and they simply bit the bullet (or moved to Washington or Nevada) and paid Oregon's 9%.

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. --President John F. Kennedy, 1963

as the Cato Institute observed in 1995, the capital gains tax is different from almost all other forms of federal taxation in that it is a voluntary tax. Since the tax is paid only when an asset is sold, taxpayers can legally avoid payment by holding on to their assets--a phenomenon known as the "lock-in effect."

In a dynamic market economy, it is impossible to point to a single factor (like the capital gains tax cut), and attribute "x" amount of additional revenue to it. Why? Because all of the other factors (global business cycle, foreign trade, direct foreign investment, fiscal and monetary policies, etc.) were changing all the while.

Nevertheless, we know that 2005 and (YTD) 2006 were lackluster years for the major stock market indexes, and we also know that Oregon's income tax rates (which are the same as Oregon's capital gains tax rates) have not changed. What has changed? A continued boom in real estate, and a continuation of the Federal capital gains tax cut passed in 2003. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Oregonians were more willing to pay 15% Federal capital gains tax than the previous 35%? I believe many Oregonians have realized that 15% federal (plus another 9% payable to the State of Oregon) is relatively "cheap".

Here's the PDF file which seeks to answer your question.

Knowing you are unlikely to accept the findings of the ""Bush Treasury Department" here's a study which challenges their findings

Here's a 2001 study from Connerly Consulting that hypothesizes how a reduction in Oregon's capital gains tax would impact Oregon tax revenues. It seems plausible that many people viewed the Federal tax reduction as very attractive, and they simply bit the bullet (or moved to Washington or Nevada) and paid Oregon's 9%.

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. --President John F. Kennedy, 1963

as the Cato Institute observed in 1995, the capital gains tax is different from almost all other forms of federal taxation in that it is a voluntary tax. Since the tax is paid only when an asset is sold, taxpayers can legally avoid payment by holding on to their assets--a phenomenon known as the "lock-in effect."

In a dynamic market economy, it is impossible to point to a single factor (like the capital gains tax cut), and attribute "x" amount of additional revenue to it. Why? Because all of the other factors (global business cycle, foreign trade, direct foreign investment, fiscal and monetary policies, etc.) were changing all the while.

Nevertheless, we know that 2005 and (YTD) 2006 were lackluster years for the major stock market indexes, and we also know that Oregon's income tax rates (which are the same as Oregon's capital gains tax rates) have not changed. What has changed? A continued boom in real estate, and a continuation of the Federal capital gains tax cut passed in 2003. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Oregonians were more willing to pay 15% Federal capital gains tax than the previous 35%? I believe many Oregonians have realized that 15% federal (plus another 9% payable to the State of Oregon) is relatively "cheap".

Here's the PDF file which seeks to answer your question.

Knowing you are unlikely to accept the findings of the "Bush Treasury Department"here's a study which challenges their findings

Here's a study from Connerly Consulting that hypothesizes how a reduction in Oregon's capital gains tax would impact tax revenues. Clearly, it is somewhat out of date. It seems plausible that many people viewed the Federal CapGains tax reduction as very attractive, and they simply bit the bullet (or moved to Washington or Nevada) and paid Oregon's 9%.

<h2>sid leader....a former "network news producer?" When, where, tell us....i have heard you've been sh** canned from every news station you've worked at, is that correct, or is it a rumor? Is that why you are now a useless public school teacher??</h2>