Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Where is the proof that Obama and Hillary paid their women staffers less for the identical same job? Generally, it is true that women make less for the same job in the USA. We have lots of room for improvement in this category. There are arguments on both sides of this issue. For example, men are generally stronger than women. So, likely for jobs requiring muscle power guys make more than their counterpart in women. Probably, women would be best off not competing with men on jobs requiring much muscle power like fire fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relative to min wage clearly there is an optimal point where raising the minimum wage results in the best possible economy. The NY study at Berkeley shows that going from 9 dollars to 15 results in positive gains on the economy. However, raising it to 20 dollars is very unlikely to have a proportional benefit at all. I.e. there is a point of diminishing returns on raising the min wage. Think of the issue as another example of the zero sum gain dilemma. There is not an infinite pie representing the minimum wage. The intermediate value theorem of continuity kicks in at some point suggesting that there is an ideal minimum wage. It may be more that 15 dollars as the NY study shows. Finding an optimal minimum wage is difficult but workable. Cost of living should be a very decisive factor impacting minimum wage. The minimum wage should reflect cost of living to some degree. As it stands the current minimum wage has not reflected cost of living since its inception.

 

There truly is no lie at all in Drjoeb's understanding of the works of the minimum wage. Chuck seems to have a bizarre outlook on Dr.joeb's stance on this issue.

 

 

Dr. Joe

My question was when did raising the minimum wage help the economy?

Your answer was that it helped the economy when it was raised in NYC to $15 hour

I checked and it hasn't happened yet

It won't happen until the end of 2018 for the earliest portion of the work force, and not until 2021 for everyone

 

So your answer is false

 

You lied to me, claiming good results from something that hasn't happened

Again I ask you

 

When did raising the minimum wage ever help the economy?

Do you have any historical proof ?

 

Your phoney prediction is exposed for the falsehood it is

https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/minwage.shtm

 

 

Where is the proof that Obama and Hillary paid their women staffers less for the identical same job? Generally, it is true that women make less for the same job in the USA.

 

No it's not

Generally it's true that men and women get paid the same for equal work

http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-war-on-women/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many good folks trying to imitate the outrageous behavior of Trump. There is no such thing as an alternate fact. A fact is a fact. Facts are normally what is undeniable.

 

The thinking goes....just look how Trump has gotten away with outright lies, one after another. What is stopping other fools from doing the same. Trump told his moron followers that he could kill somebody in public on main street and not get prosecuted. It was his way of saying anything goes, if you are big rich and powerful. Unfortunately, there may be a grain of proof in his bizarre outrages making up false facts like Obama has wire-tapped him illegally.

 

Trump is likely to be impeached because he has no self-control. Sooner or later he will dig himself into a hole too deep to get out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to address the facts Dr. Joe

So should I just forget about the minimum wage and your lie about what it is in NYC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, all you have to do is find the Berkeley report found in the Internet on NYC investigation into the likely outcome of changing min wage from 9 dollars to 15. The proof is in the pudding. Eat of the pudding to see why smart folks from Berkeley have put the question of minimum wage to rest for NYC. What has often been cited is that minimum wage has dramatically gone down in real dollars since its inception. We can only surmise how much better the economy would be had minimum wage stayed in line with the value of money over time. Since real income has gone down for working classes while the richest 1 percent have gone up by huge amounts one should easily get the picture that wealth has been squeezed up to the richest and has not trickled down to the minimum wage earners. Minimum wage earners normally spend every dollar they have to survive. And the stuff they buy makes the rich even richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can you, or can you not, provide an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of a time when raising the minimum wage improved the economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Joe, you're a moron.

Here’s the report you're going on and on about:

http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2016/The-Effects-of-a-15-Minimum-Wage-in-New-York-State.pdf

The problem with the study is that it claims raising the minimum wage to $15 in NY will overall increase the number of jobs … by about 3200 … by mid 2021.

Seriously.

Making something more expensive increases employment.

I hear these leftist *researchers* also have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

Here's the reality ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/11/new-yorks-15-minimum-wage-will-cost-65000-jobs/#56238b3c6d6e

It's worth reading the whole paper for while I don't like many of the estimates they apply (and so what about what I like, right?) they do structure their argument so that the general reader can follow along. There will be job losses from automation, there will be price rises and so on. And then they come to the really big effect. Which is that lower-income people will have more money to spend and they will go out and spend it. That increases aggregate demand in the economy and an increase in aggregate demand boosts the economy and produces more jobs. It's this very thing which produces some 81,000 jobs as a result of the $14 billion or so in increased aggregate demand. And that figure seems reasonable enough. They tell us that labor is about 20% of production costs (all these numbers are rounded by me) and so a $170,000 increase in demand could well lead to the creation of a $30,000 a year or so job. That's all internally consistent, at least roughly so.

So what's my problem with their conclusion? It's something they mention elsewhere in the paper but then decide not to apply in this section of it: the marginal propensity to save. Or we can also call it the marginal propensity to spend. They quite rightly point out that richer people save some portion of their income and poorer people tend to spend every extra dollar they can get their hands on. Entirely so. But that doesn't mean that moving money from richer people to poorer people increases demand by the amount of money being moved. Instead, it increases demand by the amount that richer people would have saved and poorer people will spend.

Recall here, we're not inventing new money to pay these higher wages. That cash is coming out of the income of someone else (because all of the economy is, in the end, an income to someone). So what we need to know is what is the marginal propensity to spend/save, and then apply that to the total amount of money being moved before we can see what the effect on demand is. They do list that propensity for different income groups but they don't seem to apply it to this increase in wages. And that's something which must be done. A reasonable and rough estimate is that with a national savings rate of 5% or so, as the U.S. currently has, with poorer people saving nothing, the rather fewer richer people are going to be saving 15% or so of their incomes (and of course that gets greater up into the 0.1% and so on but 15% is a reasonable guesstimate for us to use).

Thus the impact on demand is not the $14 billion of extra wages they've assumed. Instead it's 15% of that: the 15% that the rich would have saved, not spent, but which the poor will now spend. That lowers that estimate of jobs created by the higher minimum wage caused increased demand to 12,000 or so. Against that we've still got this papers' estimates of job losses due to higher prices, automation and so on, leaving us with a net position of about 65,000 losses in total.


And ironically, just after this Berkeley study came out and Governor Brown signed a $15 minimum wage law for California, UC Berkeley’s Chancellor announced that 500 jobs were being cut, presumably after the school’s number crunchers factored in the effect of the new minimum wage boost (which the school was planning to adopt independent of California law anyway. Here's a source for that: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/uc-berkeley-touts-15-minimum-wage-then-fires-hundreds-of-workers-after-it-passes/ .

 

Just saying …

Get a clue, Joe. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy is a close proximity to being a zero sum game. Your sources are BS. More min wages placed in the hands of those who spend cause more money to be available. It does not disappear into thin air but in the pocket of those who spend most of it. It ends up being used for things that the needy need winding up as profits and more business. Increased business requires more workers to handle it. So, clearly jobs are increased.

 

Have you noticed how during the Christmas season more people are hired. Do you see why? Stores need more help to handle increased business. When people buy more stuff more people are needed to handle the workload. The workload added by min wage increase is much more diffuse and spread thin across the economy. So, it is not noticed like the Christmas bubble. But it exists. And likely there are studies that show it. The NY study is just one of probably many that verify job increases by carefully optimally raising min wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did it ever happen that the minimum wage was raised and the economy improved as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SixShooter has read a few of Dr Joe's ramblings to himself and he came to the conclusion that Dr. Joe is a little... off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SixShooter has read a few of Dr Joe's ramblings to himself and he came to the conclusion that Dr. Joe is a little... off.

 

 

 

I did that at the very beginning of this long long thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing many of these comments by dissidents miss is that Dr.joeb believes there is an optimal minimum wage that will assure the best possible economy. Dr.joeb is a professional mathematician among other things. He is a real estate broker for over 40 years, too. So, he is very tuned in to reality unlike many of the dissidents to his thinking.

 

The reality of the minimum wage situation is that it is subject to two BIG mathematical truths. It is subject to zero-sum thinking and a well-known mathematical theorem, the Intermediate Value continuity theorem. Any time one tries to buck an important truth without considering these two BIG truths one ends up with contradictory nonsensical reasoning like so many of the novice dissidents to this topic. To them Dr.joeb says become "WILLING TO LEARN". Recall that Dr.joeb's pseudonym in his previous life as the found father Abraham Clark was "WILLING TO LEARN". And that is great advice for all viewers.

 

For those who are mathematically illiterate (and this is true of most of the dissidents in this topic) the intermediate continuity theorem basically says that if two continuous variables have an opposite effect on a situation than there is an intermediate value that is a stable or optimal. In some ways the Intermediate continuity theorem ties directly into the zero sum game. They are similar big truths. Here is a simple example of how the intermediate continuity theorem works in horse racing. Horse race track are banked. Most everyone believes that the first post position must be the fastest post position because the innermost circle on the rail is the shortest distance. However, there is a trade off between the two continuous variables of banking and shortest distance. The longest circumference of a race track is the outer most circle. Combatting the variable of distance is the continuous variable of banking. A horse on the farthest circle has the most advantage of running down hill. And going down hill is way easier than going on a flat surface. So the two continuous variables of downhill advantage and shortness of path trade off and find an intermediate value that is optimal. It turns out that most of the time an inner most post position like the 5th post is best at many 5/8th mile tracks. Wins at the optimal posts generally reflect that advantage gained from the big truth of the Intermediate continuity value.theorem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, it all depends on whether the minimum wage selected was optimal. Read my last message that explains how the Intermediate Continuity theorem applies. Admittedly, it is very difficult to find that optimal minimum wage. And likely in the past it was selected both close to optimal and not close to optimal. The NY study tries to explain how going from 9 dollars min wage to 15 results in an improved economy. You can argue with their reasoning, if you wish. But you cannot argue with the Intermediate Continuity theorem. It is an absolute truth. Do you see how your question is innocuous? Surely there have been times when an increase in minimum wage was beneficial. However, it is always difficult to prove one way or another whether upping the min wage is advantageous. There are lots of indicators that the lower income people have gone down in real income. And that surely reflects that their wages are inadequate and should be regulated upwards using the minimum wage strategy. Generally, the rich have gotten richer and the lower incomes have paid for much of their misbegotten new unearned levels of wealth. Most studies on this issue point in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be a Chooser should read the last message by Drjoeb that explains how the dominant truth as to the size of the minimum wage is subject to many continuous variables that counteract one another. This is a perfect situation for the Intermediate Value Theorem of Continuity to kick in. There is an optimal minimum wage where the economy benefits the most. The problem is that there are so many conflicting continuous variables that finding that optimal point is no easy trick. It exists. That is all we really know. Making a good guess is the best we can do. And then we can see the results of our decision on this issue after the new min wage kicks in. One thing we know for sure. The lower income working classes real wages have gone down substantially over the years while the minimum wage has not kept up with cost of living. This suggests upping the minimum wage to push more wealth into the hands of the lower income working force. They will spend what ever extra money they get. And they will not save much of it like the top earners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, it all depends on whether the minimum wage selected was optimal. Read my last message that explains how the Intermediate Continuity theorem applies. Admittedly, it is very difficult to find that optimal minimum wage. And likely in the past it was selected both close to optimal and not close to optimal. The NY study tries to explain how going from 9 dollars min wage to 15 results in an improved economy. You can argue with their reasoning, if you wish. But you cannot argue with the Intermediate Continuity theorem. It is an absolute truth. Do you see how your question is innocuous? Surely there have been times when an increase in minimum wage was beneficial. However, it is always difficult to prove one way or another whether upping the min wage is advantageous. There are lots of indicators that the lower income people have gone down in real income. And that surely reflects that their wages are inadequate and should be regulated upwards using the minimum wage strategy. Generally, the rich have gotten richer and the lower incomes have paid for much of their misbegotten new unearned levels of wealth. Most studies on this issue point in that direction.

 

 

When did it EVER HAPPEN, Dr. Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, I know you are intelligent. Don't you see the answer is simply that the real income of min wage people has steadily gone down. So, it must happened in recent years probably a number of times since there have been several min wage increases over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most geniuses appear that way to normal folks. Sorry, but drjoeb makes no apology for being born with the right stuff. What you and others should do is read carefully what Dr.joeb writes. It is grounded in deep thinking on any and all issues. He is rarely wrong but everyone has a bad day now and then. Drjoeb did his best to warn viewers of the dangerous psychopathic mind of Trump. He is a wily liar who makes up his own facts that he calls alternates to real facts. He is a mysoginist sociopathic liar with limited real brain power. Know this. He was bailed out of his bankrupt casino by his dad. Later on the government figured out a way for him to bankrupt and screw the guys who built his building. This guy is an abominable criminal who has no scruples. His only principle is to win at any and all cost. He will wind up screwing his followers. In fact, he already has backpedaled on his claims of making universal health care for all at a cheaper price. He is likely to cause another dreadful expensive war like Bush Jr. And his moronic attempt to tell the public that he will save them from terrorism is blatantly stupid. Any one is more likely to be killed by a slip in their own bathroom than by a bomb from a terrorist. Our CIA, ATEP, FBI, and various other agencies will do the best job to protect our nation against terrorism as they always have done with the exception of the Bush/Cheney ignoring reports that 9-11 was imminent. During that period it appeared that Bush/Cheney wanted to have a Pearl-Harbor type event to justify claiming Iraq's and save Halliburton from bankruptcy with a sole source contract to repair the damage done by our destroying Iraq. So, they ignored approximately 55 warnings about a big terrorist even in the USA that we now know was 9-11. Clinton left extensive documentation for the Bush/Cheney bunch explaining how Osama Bin Laden was bound and determined to cause mayhem in the USA and else where. Clinton and Bush/Cheney Anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke was ignored totally. Clarke explains how that happened in his book "Against All Enemies". Read it. Obama put Osama and Al Qaeda to sleep with his clandestine policies to pinpoint attacks on terrorists with rockets and intelligence gathered by CIA and other law enforcement units. We do not need Trump to mess up what Obama has already accomplished in fortifying our anti-terrorism policies. Trump can only mess up what is working fine. Spending more money on a bigger military will not yield more protection against terrorism. It will only screw up funding for things that we really need like health care for all at a cost comparable to Canada and most every other nation with universal health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most geniuses appear that way to normal folks. Sorry, but drjoeb makes no apology for being born with the right stuff. What you and others should do is read carefully what Dr.joeb writes. It is grounded in deep thinking on any and all issues. He is rarely wrong but everyone has a bad day now and then. Drjoeb did his best to warn viewers of the dangerous psychopathic mind of Trump. He is a wily liar who makes up his own facts that he calls alternates to real facts. He is a mysoginist sociopathic liar with limited real brain power. Know this. He was bailed out of his bankrupt casino by his dad. Later on the government figured out a way for him to bankrupt and screw the guys who built his building. This guy is an abominable criminal who has no scruples. His only principle is to win at any and all cost. He will wind up screwing his followers. In fact, he already has backpedaled on his claims of making universal health care for all at a cheaper price. He is likely to cause another dreadful expensive war like Bush Jr. And his moronic attempt to tell the public that he will save them from terrorism is blatantly stupid. Any one is more likely to be killed by a slip in their own bathroom than by a bomb from a terrorist. Our CIA, ATEP, FBI, and various other agencies will do the best job to protect our nation against terrorism as they always have done with the exception of the Bush/Cheney ignoring reports that 9-11 was imminent. During that period it appeared that Bush/Cheney wanted to have a Pearl-Harbor type event to justify claiming Iraq's and save Halliburton from bankruptcy with a sole source contract to repair the damage done by our destroying Iraq. So, they ignored approximately 55 warnings about a big terrorist even in the USA that we now know was 9-11. Clinton left extensive documentation for the Bush/Cheney bunch explaining how Osama Bin Laden was bound and determined to cause mayhem in the USA and else where. Clinton and Bush/Cheney Anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke was ignored totally. Clarke explains how that happened in his book "Against All Enemies". Read it. Obama put Osama and Al Qaeda to sleep with his clandestine policies to pinpoint attacks on terrorists with rockets and intelligence gathered by CIA and other law enforcement units. We do not need Trump to mess up what Obama has already accomplished in fortifying our anti-terrorism policies. Trump can only mess up what is working fine. Spending more money on a bigger military will not yield more protection against terrorism. It will only screw up funding for things that we really need like health care for all at a cost comparable to Canada and most every other nation with universal health care.

Bush let the 9-11 happen just like FDR let Pearl Harbor happen

 

If a major terrorist attack happens soon Five will be very suspicious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton left extensive documentation for the Bush/Cheney bunch explaining how Osama Bin Laden was bound and determined to cause mayhem in the USA and else where. His Anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke was ignored totally. Clarke explains how that happened in his book "Against All Enemies". Read it.

LOL! Apparently *Dr* Joe, genius extraordinare, *Mr “right stuff”*, is unaware that none other than Richard Clarke’s own statements prove the above false.

 

Here’s what Clarke had to say in a 2002 interview, before he wrote the book *Dr* Joe mentions:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/24/transcript-clarke-praises-bush-team-in-02/

 

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

 

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

 

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

 

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

 

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

 

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

 

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

 

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

 

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

 

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

 

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

 

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

 

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

 

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

 

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

 

ANGLE: OK.

 

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

 

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

 

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

 

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

 

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

 

CLARKE: In October of '98.

 

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

 

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

 

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

 

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

 

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

 

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

 

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

 

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

 

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

 

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

 

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

 

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

 

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

 

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

 

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

 

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

 

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

 

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

 

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

 

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

 

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

 

CLARKE: That's right.

 

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

 

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

 

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

 

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

 

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

 

CLARKE: Yes it did.

 

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

 

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

That’s GAME SET MATCH against *Mr “right stuff”’s* nonsense. The very man who started ... when he ran for President as a DemocRAT … the meme Joe promotes had earlier presented a timeline showing that the Bush administration not only continued to pursue al-Qaeda but acted on decisions that had not been made under Clinton. Clearly, Clark was NOT “totally ignored”. In fact, Clarke admitted that Bush increased CIA resources five fold to deal with the threat. FIVE FOLD. And as Clark noted, “The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies" and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond.” And when all is said and done, what exactly did the forum’s resident “genius” expect Bush to have done in the first 9 months of his Presidency that Clinton couldn’t have done in the 8 years prior to that? Hmmmmmmm? For example, the Washington Times reported

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/6/fitton-how-911-warnings-were-ignored/#ixzz38rmTBSg9

 

It took 11 years, but Judicial Watch recently received a response to a 2002 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that revealed another major missed opportunity by the Clinton administration to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, which is part of perhaps the most catastrophic failure in the history of U.S. intelligence.

 

… snip …

 

The chilling details come from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which finally handed over an intelligence information report titled “Letters Detailing Osama bin Laden and Terrorists’ Plans to Hijack an Aircraft Flying Out of Frankfurt, Germany, in 2000.” The report is dated Sept. 27, 2001.

 

In early 2000, the documents informed America’s top intelligence analysts that al Qaeda had devised a sophisticated plan to hijack a commercial airliner departing Frankfurt International Airport between March and August 2000. The terrorist team was to consist of an Arab, a Pakistani and a Chechen, and their targets were U.S. Airlines, Lufthansa and Air France. The document pieces together an intricate plot directed by a 40-year-old Saudi, Sheik Dzabir, from a prominent family with ties to the House of Saud. It revealed that al Qaeda had actually penetrated the consular section of the German Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, relying on a contact referred to as “Mrs. Wagner” to provide European Union visas for use in forged Pakistani passports for the terrorists.

 

So, how did the Clinton administration respond? In the incriminating words of the intelligence information report, advanced warning of the plot “was disregarded because nobody believed that Osama bin Laden or the Taliban could carry out such an operation.” Perhaps that explains why, for 13 years, the report was classified “secret” and hidden from public view until Judicial Watch forced its release in August of this year.

 

The report revealed that al Qaeda, the Taliban and Chechen Islamic militants all had substantial operating support bases in Hamburg and Frankfurt, Germany. It included the name, address and telephone numbers of an al Qaeda passport forger in Hamburg for the Taliban and other Afghan terrorists and their support personnel during January and February 2000. The report showed that the terrorists had established a secure, reliable transport route to Chechnya from Pakistan and Afghanistan through Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It also revealed that in January 2000, bin Laden and Taliban officials held a two-day hijack planning meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan.

 

In short, nearly two full years before the horrific attack on the World Trade Center, the international Islamic terrorist cabal revealed its insidious hand for all the world to see. The details of names, addresses and other information from this report should have provided “actionable intelligence” for any number of U.S. anti-terrorist operations. Instead, every scintilla of the information “was disregarded because nobody believed that Osama bin Laden or the Taliban could carry out such an operation.”

So it turns out the Clinton administration ignored a bin Laden plot to hijack planes in 2000. And then kept that fact secret for more than a decade. I particularly find the mention of the Hamburg cell of al-Qaeda particularly interesting because several people involved in the 9/11 attack had a Hamburg connection … were members of the Hamburg cell of al-Qaeda. For example, Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, was likely the "Hamburg Student" that was mentioned in the Day Calendar of Iraqi intelligence officer "al-Ani" because "Hamburg Student" is the exact occupation that was listed on Atta's passport to Czechoslovakia when he purportedly met with al-Ani in Prague (according to Czech intelligence) shortly before 9/11. Another person from Hamburg, who was a close associate of Atta, was Ramzi bin al-Shibh. He was accused by the US government of being a "key facilitator for the September 11 attacks". Ziad Jarrah, who is believed to have been the hijacker pilot of Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania, was a third member of the Atta Hamburg cell. So was Marwan al-Shehhi, the hijacker pilot of Flight 175, which hit the South Tower of the WTC. Interesting, no? The question that should be asked is whether anyone in the Clinton administration ever told the Bush administration about this plot. Did Mr Clarke? My suspicion is no.

 

Furthermore, could the fact that Bush didn’t act be blamed on the Chinese Walls that Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelich erect between the FBI and various intelligence agencies? The 9/11 Commission concluded that it was these Chinese Walls that led to 9/11 being a success. They prevented the CIA from telling the Justice Department that there were a number of terrorists in the country and that they were training to fly large jets. The success of 9/11 became a virtual certainty when Clinton ordered Gorelick to create the Chinese Walls, using Clinton signed PDD24. He did that in order to prevent the flow of information between government intelligence, security and police agencies in order to keep anyone from connecting the dots in Chinagate. But that kept the various agencies that were supposed to protect us from something like 9/11 from talking to one another. And as a result of PDD24, intelligence information could not be shared between agencies but had to travel up a chain of command established by Clinton and Gorelick through the Justice Department, which Clinton controlled via Reno. Here, you can read all about Gorelick and those barriers to the flow of vital intelligence information yourself (of course, I'm not holding my breath that *Dr* Joe will read it):

 

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12894

 

The real travesty is that Jamie Gorelick was on the 9/11 Commission, instead of being placed under oath and grilled about HER ROLE in 9/11. In fact, she failed to share her “wall memo” with anyone on the Commission ... until Attorney General John Ashcroft was blasted for the “wall” while he was testifying before the 9/11 commission and responded thus: “Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review,” he said. “Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission.”

 

And by the way. Do you want to know what DemocRAT Jamie Gorelick did after leaving the Clinton administration in 1997? First, she went to work for Fannie May, where as Vice Chairman, she helped bankrupt Fannie May and eventually destroy the economy of the US when Fannie May collapsed … while all the while lining her pockets with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses (some for what turned out to be bogus transactions). And despite both that massive economic failure and the detrimental consequence of her Chinese Walls on the security of the US on 9/11, she was placed on Obama's short list to head the FBI. She probably didn’t get the slot because she had supported Hillary in the 2008 primary. When Hillary decided to run for President in 2016, she, of course, again supported her … by, for example, attacking Comey in the press regarding emailgate. Indeed she led the effort with articles in the MSM like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-is-damaging-our-democracy/2016/10/29/894d0f5e-9e49-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.99c13bb70224 . The hypocrisy of the Washington Post and Gorelich in writing and publishing that article is stunning … as pointed out here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441612/jamie-gorelicks-washington-post-oped-shows-whats-wrong-washington . But as reward, it was revealed after the election that Gorelick was on the short list to become Hillary’s Attorney General had she won.

 

Not quite the picture you tried to present, eh *genius*? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarke is not the only one who wrote about the Bush/Cheney administration ignoring the terrorist threat. Atta was a known Al Qaeda activist enjoying video games in Jeb Bush's Florida just prior to his piloting the hijacked plane into one of the twin towers. Some of the other participants in the 9-11 fiasco were known to support terrorism

 

The salient fact is that the PNAC bunch knew they needed a Pearl Harbor to justify their invasion of Iraq. So, they looked the other ways and let the terrorists romp in our country. 9-11 was just the kind of incident needed to convince Congress of a need to go to war in Iraq. George Bush senior did the right thing in not destabilizing the Middle East by ousting Hussein in the first Iraq war. Hussein was bad but he held Iraq together for many years. Bush senior understood that ousting Hussein was a bad idea. We had no business sacrificing all of those innocent lives by invading Iraq in that second unnecessary war in Iraq. Most everyone with common sense understands this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not quite the picture you tried to present, eh *genius*? :D

If Bush's administration was so serious about national security, Why did they wait until 9-4-2001 to meet with Richard Clarke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumpsters are coming out from their sewer in big numbers judging from the last BS messages that are totally reeking of alternative facts a la Trumpster. Dr.joeb enjoys rubbing their nose in the Trump doodoo. Even some good Republicans know their party has been contaminated by Trump. How could it be that Dr.joeb saw through the Trump lies when so many didn't. Could it be because Dr.joeb is made out of the right stuff. You are very fortunate to have Dr.joeb clearing the fog created by mediocre posters like the recent ones in this topic.

 

Most of the posters in this forum still believes that they have a litmus test for identifying a person as a 'liberal' or 'conservative'. That they attempt to paste labels on intelligent human beings says something about them not being made of the 'right stuff'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, I thought your post on finding the optimal Minimum wage was spot on. I'm sorry it skipped the heads of others.here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumpsters are coming out from their sewer in big numbers judging from the last BS messages that are totally reeking of alternative facts a la Trumpster. Dr.joeb enjoys rubbing their nose in the Trump doodoo. Even some good Republicans know their party has been contaminated by Trump. How could it be that Dr.joeb saw through the Trump lies when so many didn't. Could it be because Dr.joeb is made out of the right stuff. You are very fortunate to have Dr.joeb clearing the fog created by mediocre posters like the recent ones in this topic.

 

Most of the posters in this forum still believes that they have a litmus test for identifying a person as a 'liberal' or 'conservative'. That they attempt to paste labels on intelligent human beings says something about them not being made of the 'right stuff'.

dr joe b id kick your ass up and down this forum,,, you are not the right stuff you are gay like all the other pecker puffers on the left here are !!! Go wait for your welfare ck boy !!! Let the grown ups handle things , because your side fucked everything up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk man

Trump has done more good than any potus lately

Killed the TPP

According to the reports on the last g20 meeting, he isn't lying about tariffs

I'm a protectionist

I am excited to see tariffs raised

Slashing UN funding is fantastic

 

If he does absolutely nothing else then he still has done more good for We the People than has been done in 40 years

 

I didn't even vote trump

I just call it how I see it

 

So not sure if a trump contaminated GOP is a bad thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...