Kansas native Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., broke two unwritten rules when he rode on Air Force One last week: He visited with reporters aboard the plane, and he spoke ill of the administration while doing so. Specter told reporters that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was “devastating,” yet President Bush was sticking by Gonzales out of “personal loyalty.” White House officials were not happy with Specter — though he was allowed to ride back to Washington, D.C., on Air Force One.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
41 Comments
Hmmm, don’t pee in your own campground was always a rule I learned in boy scouts. Guess that applies to Air Force One as well. :)
Big deal. Arlen will talk tough and grandstand in Senate hearings, but at the end of the day, he’s still inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
And what a bunch of hissy fit teenage bitches this Administration has turned out to be. No wonder they have the DC courtier media by the short hairs.
While riding in one’s car, don’t speak ill of them. Although Bush is a criminal, a liar and a low life, I would not say so while on his plane. And yes, I would love to ride on AF1 even if I had to look at Bush for a few hours. But I would rather ride on it with President Obama or President Clinton in 2009!
Just how childish can our leaders get?
If the economy is booming, then why is the middle class shrinking?
Bush doesn’t OWN AF1..the American people do.
Just because people buy consumer goods, that doesn’t mean they have money to spend. Kinda’ like the Iraq war…how high is the deficit now? Some day the bill will come due..and then we’ll ALL be in a world of hurt.
True Mary, except for the americans who escape to Paraguay.
If the economy is booming, then why is the middle class shrinking?
Posted by: CR | July 31, 2007 at 09:18 AM
Please provide relevant data behind your assertion.
LJ, google “shrinking middle class” and see what you find.
It is true.
Now, care to provide sources that the “middle class” is NOT shrinking?
Hey, Arlen, not a smart move. You will have to walk home next time.
Yeah, that’s what Arlen says on Air Force One.
A few days later he says this:
Sen. Arlen Specter, R.-Pennsylvania, said Thursday that Senate Democrats were just playing politics with their attacks on the Bush administration including their request for a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“It’s been a great fundraising device for the Democratic Party,” Specter, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during a press conference on Capitol Hill.
******
Gonzo is lying, Specter knows he’s lying, Specter is appalled by the lying, but publicly he says, “democrats are just playing politics.”
What a Republican . . .
“True Mary, except for the americans who escape to Paraguay.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 10:22 AM ”
I have actually been to Paraguay.Maybe I should by an estancia near the Bush’s
LJ, google “shrinking middle class” and see what you find.
It is true.
Now, care to provide sources that the “middle class” is NOT shrinking?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 10:35 AM
The data I saw was 2003 and before, though did show a negative trend. Please define middle class and I will try, although I did not make any claims, I only asked that the claim be justified by facts.
Please define middle class.
You must not have googled very far, LJ.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/
This economist talks about how things have gone for the “middle class” (your term) for the last thirty years.
Google “shrinking middle class” and drill down farther than the first two articles.
Sorry, “middle class” was CR’s term, not LJ’s.
You must not have googled very far, LJ.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/
This economist talks about how things have gone for the “middle class” (your term) for the last thirty years.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM
This was basically an opinion article, and had little statistical facts.
———-Google “shrinking middle class” and drill down farther than the first two articles.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Will do that when I get some time.Hopefully this afternoon.
Still, please define middle class
Oil at new high, go bush.
I think either you or CR needs to define middle class, LJ. You guys brought it up. I just commented on it.
If the truth depends on the definition of middle class, I guess both sides could pick their own definition and prove themselves right.
I think either you or CR needs to define middle class, LJ. You guys brought it up. I just commented on it.
If the truth depends on the definition of middle class, I guess both sides could pick their own definition and prove themselves right.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM
You are right. Cr brought it up, he should define it . And after quickly looking at some numbers, it is difficult to decipher. Is it all households? Households with two adults and 2.3 children? It really does depend on ones definiton. Wwhat does define? The number of households owning their own home? Is it a income spread, say 25K to 75K? Well, 25K may be too low, and 75K not high enough. is it the spread of the middle 50% of all household income. the bottom 25% being poor, the top 25% being rich? The federal guidelines for poor? Cr, please tell me what you mean!
lj – I would probably have different definitions depending on the family. For example, a couple both working with total income 100K would be quite similar to a bachelor at 50K. That said, i would probably define middle class for a familt as about 50-150K total income but that is a bit of a shot in the dark.
LJ,
How about this:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ex=1332907200&en=7a75e549037fb358&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
Middle Income= those that benefitted the least from the income tax cuts.
P.S. The intro to the article:*******************************Income Gap Is Widening, Data ShowsBy DAVID CAY JOHNSTONPublished: March 29, 2007
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.************************This is anything but a new thing: It’s been happening for about 35 years.
Ben-probably about right,Rage-Sorry, that post is only about the income gap widening by the rich getting more, has nothing to do the the “disappearing middle classs”THe Phantom-
You mean those who already pay no income taxes?
“Sorry, that post is only about the income gap widening by the rich getting more, has nothing to do the the “disappearing middle class.”
lj: What do you think an ‘income gap’ is? Do I need to draw a picture? Imagine an hourglass, except with a very, very, tiny top portion.
It’s not exactly rocket science, man. Do the math.
I’m sorry, but I’m disinclined to do it for you. I think you know better.
Just compare what it cost for young people to get out on their own today as opposed to what it cost those of us over the age of 50 when we were first starting out. Wages haven’t kept up with the cost of living by a long shot. That’s where the “middle class” has gone, still living in their parent’s basement because with an average income one can’t afford to buy gas, eat, pay a mortage and ultilities all at the same time…average salaries just won’t go that far anymore.
Some real numbers ffrom the bureau of labor statitiscs
median income 1977 $16,100in 2005 dollars $45272
Median income for 2004$43318
Seems like it pretty well kept up to me—–
Amen Mary – finally someone who has a clue as to what middle class really is.
I’m not surprised that others on this blog want to debate as to exactly what is middle class.
These people try to deflect the debate into meaningless tangents rather than to really debate the issue. I think they do that because deep down they know what exactly what Bush has done to the middle class but don’t want to own up to it.
These people try to deflect the debate into meaningless tangents rather than to really debate the issue. I think they do that because deep down they know what exactly what Bush has done to the middle class but don’t want to own up to it.
Posted by: CR | July 31, 2007 at 05:03 PM
Oh BS. Please define middle class. I just showed you the real NUMBERS of what happened to the median income since 1977. What would you like to debate? That it costs more to live on basic necessities, or on cable TB, the computer, the internet, the iphone, the ps3? The fact that when I went to high school, few owned cars, and when they did, they were older. Now you go past a high school parking lot, full of new or nearly new cars? That kids buy %200 tennis shoes? What would you like to debate? What is middle income? How has it gone down in relation to expenses? For the same lifestyle. That means no computers, no cable or dish network, no netowrk, no ipod. No cell phone, fewer air conditioners, usually one car per family. Smaller houses in general. Few people affording a cruise, or trips to the bahamas or cancun. And I meand damn few. No motor homes or fifth wheelers, except for the very well off. The list goes on. So, tell me where the middle class has lost ground? SO me some proof, not bs arguments or editorials.
“still living in their parent’s basement because with an average income one can’t afford to buy gas, eat, pay a mortage and ultilities all at the same time…”
Median income is over $43,000. If you can;t do those things on that income, in this state, you are not living correctly. How do I know. Because I know lots of people who don;t make any more than that, and they are not living in their parents basement.
Thank GOd for Democrats! They will save us all. And give us Free healthcare! ANd take allthe money from the evil rich bastards and give us what we deserve! They will solve Iraq, and make peace and love and understanding the motto of the entire world. All Hail! All Hail the Democrat party!
Why thank you lj!
Somebody has to clean up after the poopy diaper Republicans!
Your Welcome. Although my post was meant in sarcasm, it was only party so. You are right. The Republican Party has lost it’s roots and made a poopty diaper out of things, and that is the truth. I am not sure the Dems are any better, but Hey, Give it a whirl! Time for a change.
LJ
I really am conservatiove on a lot of things, liberal in others.
I cannot imagine a party that demands loyalty to Phil Kline or Brownback who are so far to the right they may as well go to church with the Rev Phelps.
That is what the Republicans have come to. Agree with the Far Religious right or leave.
Sieg Heil Kansas!
Hmmm, don’t pee in your own campground was always a rule I learned in boy scouts. Guess that applies to Air Force One as well. :)
Posted by: Kansas | July 31, 2007 at 02:17 AM
Sorry Kansas but the new Republican rule is:
Poop in your diapers and sit there and masturbate.
I’m so glad that the Republicans have brought honor and integrity to Congress.
I am guessing the Leftists on this blog can never again complain about trolls.
“cannot imagine a party that demands loyalty to Phil Kline or Brownback who are so far to the right they may as well go to church with the Rev Phelps”
While I may not go quite that far, I would have to agree in principal
I am guessing the Leftists on this blog can never again complain about trolls.
Posted by: Kansas | July 31, 2007 at 08:16 PM
Gee Kansas, the one thing that you should have learned from your heroes Bush and Cheney is that there are no rules.
I think someone needs to explain the concept of “median income”, the top portion of income skews the graph so far out of whack that it’s impossible to rely on. When you have multibillionaires factored into it, the numbers at the bottom and middle are going to be artificially inflated.
Learn your math. The median is the point at where 50% of the people make more,m 50% of the people make less. It cannot be skewed. What can be skewed is the mean, which is the average. That’s the concept, expained enough for you?
Hey guys, I would also like you middle class definers to really try to get past what the definition of IS is. If you just quote statistics and say numbers don’t lie, yet you can still miss the point by a mile. Numbers are blinders and only serve to grind political axes in these kind of settings.What about the HUGE number of illegal immigrants living on very low wages that aren’t invested in our social security system, etc…They have had a huge impact on what the middle class is, and we can’t really bend over backwards to include them until they are legal. (ok just try until one of them hits your car and has no insurance) Without the illegals the WHOLE perspective changes. A lot of middle class people have moved up thanks to this large subclass. A subclass that I don’t count until they are legal and VOTING, and investing in Social Security, and have some real insurance – health and otherwise. Yes we are better off now by the “18 yr old’s move-out measure”. A lot of kids can move out sooner than when I did 35 years ago, and they can go into hawk for a new car much sooner also. Things really are as good or better as when I moved out on my own in ‘74 – except college tuition is rising much faster. 3 of mine have moved out in last 5 yrs, I speak from experience. The hard part was teaching to live within their means – it was easy – we had tons of adults to point to as bad examples….Besides, with regards to how the middle class is doing, I think I would rather compare earnings to prewar (WW2) times instead of the one-time post war bubble period in order to really make sense of where the pursuit of the American Dream is going. Why select the downhill side of our economy during Europe’s rebuilding – gaining steam and us returning to the prewar measures.We are and it’s proven by all the people trying to come here legally, illegally and however they can. They laugh at North Americans whining about how bad off they think they are, and squabbling about how there “might be” a trend that says they are getting worse off. Hey, our country truly shares its success, helping our “strategic rivals” and encouraging them to join the modern movement. Did the Soviets share their success? (scrap heap of history) Will the Chinese? Will the Islamists? Those are the best and most burning economic comparisons that really matter, not a percentage point of some obtuse measure of American income. Wake up and see how well off you really are.
I think we sank lower and lower after the post war boom thanks to tax and spend dems who were limousine liberals posing for a public unwilling to really scrutinize them. Clinton got credit for the Republican congress’s wresting and repairing of the economy from the tax and spenders who had been in congress forever. It wasn’t ANYTHING Bill did or dems could point to it and crow about doing more like that (note what Hillary is NOT saying as she campaigns). Our economy is still rising and still growing and still doing fantastic even as the Asian Tigers and China are doing everything they can to eat our lunch. Thanks Newt Gingrich, for setting the table for the stability we now enjoy.