My Response to Senator Conrad In Today’s Wall St Journal
I had the honor of having one of my letters to the editor published in today’s Wall St Journal. Here it is. Gotta keep these “Democratic” Senators honest.
Senator Conrad Has No Eyes to See a Booming Economy
In his Feb. 16 Letter to the Editor “The Federal Debt Explosion,” Sen. Kent Conrad states, “The fact is, this administration has the worst fiscal record in history and its new budget does nothing to change that.”I’m sorry, am I missing something here?
Following the Bush 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and individual income, our economy has expanded for more than 48 months at an average of 3.5 percentage annual growth. The federal deficit has also shrunk 58% over the past three years mostly due to soaring tax payments emanating from the much-maligned “rich” and evil corporations. More than 7.5 million new jobs have been created with unemployment at 4.6%. Inflation remains relatively low, productivity sky high, exports are increasing, and wages have been rising across the board. All of this has occurred in spite of the Clinton recession, corporate scandals, bursting of the dot-com bubble, 9/11 and Katrina — and yes, despite overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to the pro-growth Bush tax cuts by liberal Democrat senators such as Sen. Conrad.
While President Bush and the GOP have failed to hold the line on entitlement spending and were rightfully penalized for it in the 2006 elections, does the Bush administration really have the “worst record in history?” Was Sen. Conrad not around to witness the stagflation and misery index of the Carter years in the 1970s?
As to the senator’s concern over the rising federal debt burden, our federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP is currently at 36.8%, having increased $1.4 trillion from 2003-2006, but which is now falling. As was noted by a Feb. 6 Journal editorial, “Fiscal Revelation,” this amount “is dwarfed by the $14 trillion in new household wealth created over the same period,” yet another empirical fact conveniently ignored by the senator.
Finally, the president’s proposed 2008 budget condemned by Sen. Conrad is at least a step in the right direction in that it reduces federal spending from 20.3% of GDP to 18.3% of GDP, calls for the elimination or reduction of 141 programs for a savings of $12 billion, and eliminates the deficit by 2012 if the president’s tax cuts are extended. Perhaps if Mr. Bush had proposed spending and tax increases, Sen. Conrad would have been less critical. If he is really as “concerned” about the long-term economic picture in our country, perhaps he and his Democrat colleagues will work with the president and congressional Republicans on the many market-based reforms that have been proposed and partially enacted for the two most significant unfunded liabilities facing future generations of Americans — Social Security and Medicare.
They have done nothing in the past besides demagoguing and obstructing such market-based reforms, but who knows, perhaps Democrats will be singing a different tune now that they are in the majority.
Gregg Jackson
Newton Mass.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Here’s another letter to the WSJ. I notice that you changed the version of your letter that you posted here to remove the “lowest in 30 years” lie, but the WSJ already published it. Slick move, liar.
In his letter to your paper, Gregg Jackson states that the current 4.6% unemployment rate is the lowest in 30 years. Yet even the laziest of armchair economists knows this is incorrect. In fact, the unemployment rate was under 4.6% in 39 of 48 months during the 1998-2001 period.
Either Mr. Jackson is grossly incompetent or a deliberate liar. I suspect the latter, which makes the fact that he is the author of a book designed to counter purported “liberal lies” particularly ironic and amusing.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I “changed the version of my letter” did I? The letter to the editor posted in the the Tuesday Feb 27,2007 Wall St. Journal in which I rebut the distortions and innacuracies of Senator Conrad’s previous Feb 16th letter, which he still has not responded to, which I have posted above is ver batum as it appears in the actual paper.
Perhaps you can cite your proof source that shows that I said that “the current 4.6% unemployment rate is the lowest in 30 years.”
So until you prove me wrong, it is you not I who is the liar.
My letter above is the exact letter to the editor published in the Tuesday Feb 27th edition of the WSJ.
So, I’ll be waiting for your “proof” that I changed my letter. Until then we’ll all assume that you are a bitter partisan bomb throwing moron.
Also funny how you could not rebut one of my statements in my letter to Senator Conrad.
Thanks for playing…
Gregg
Gregg
March 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“ver batum?” I think you mean “verbatim,” pal.
You’re a liar and you know it. Look at the hardcopy version of the WSJ, not the online version (which was probably changed after I told you/them about your lie). It is a fact that you said unemployment was the lowest in 30 years. But since I can’t reproduce the hardcopy version here, I can’t prove it. How convenient for you.
You also state that “productivity [is] sky high,” yet productivity has been declining steadily for three years. It was PREVIOUSLY skyhigh, but it is now falling to worrisome levels.
You are a despicable liar.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Bnkpm,
I have the hard copy in my hand dated Feb 27th,2006 and you are incorrect. The hard copy original version does not say what you claim I said and omitted that “unemployment was the lowest in 20 years.” So if you would like to persist in perpetuating your false claim (i.e. your lie to which you stubbornly cling)I would love it if you would agree to identify yourself and wager some money on it. In fact I am so sure of what I am saying becuase I actually possess the original hard copy which is the exact same as the on line version.Nobody changed anything and the claims that I made are 100% accurate including the fact that as I state in the article that productivity remains “sky high.”
So, at this point you have falsely accused me of “changing” the version of the original print version of my letter to the editor.The online version doesn’t even say what you claim. So where the hell are you getting your information. You don’t even make sense. YOu claim I changed the original and you don’t even possess that. What are talking about liar? I am willing to wager $100,000 publically. In fact you can order the original from the WSJ since you don’t have a copy to prove me wrong since you are so sure that I “changed” the origianl. The burden of proof is on you. Are you willing to publically identify yourself and officially put your money where your mouth is? If not I would advise you quit falsely accusing people of “lying” when it is you yourself who is the only liar.Get a life.
Gregg
March 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHA! what a liar you are.
If I had the rights to post a scan of your letter on your blog, I would, and expose you as a liar. But I don’t have such rights. How convenient for you - again.
But since YOU have the rights to post such a scan on your blog, why don’t you and prove me wrong? You won’t, because you know I’m telling the truth and you are lying. And all the pompous grandstanding in the world won’t change that.
As far as the productivity growth is concerned, read this article, which says:
“On Mar. 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that nonfarm business productivity rose by only 1.6% in 2006, its smallest gain since 1997. And more bad news was buried deep in the report: Productivity gains for 2005 and 2004 were revised down as well.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_12/b4026060.htm
Oh, and by the way: resorting to namecalling (”bitter partisan bomb throwing moron”) is the clearest indicator that one has been “busted” and has lost the argument.
I’m done with you, liar.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I will post the original article from the Wall St. Journal on the blog to prove that you are a liar and a moon bat.
Will you be man enough to identify yourself and put the proposed $100,000 on it publically? I would think that such a wager would be easy money for you since you are so sure that I omitted the words “lowest in 30 years” from the original print edition of my letter to the editor.
Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Gregg
March 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
By the way, you can scan my letter to the editor from the original version of Wall St. Journal dated Fed 27,2007 as I suggested you do in our last exchange and post it on the internet. You have the “right” to do that. You don’t need my permission. And if you do, I am giving you permission to do so. So, go ahead and scan and post my letter to the editor and prove me wrong. You won’t because you can’t. The original letter to the editor from the print edition is exactly the same as the one I posted on line.
You seem like one angry and bitter individual. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than falsely accuse people of things?
I’ll be wiating to hear back from you about identifying yourself and putting your money where your mouth is.
Gregg
March 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Now everybody knows who the “liar” was during this whole escapade. Get a life.
Gregg
March 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Well, now you’re lying about lying, and lying about lying about lying, which makes you a compulsive pathological liar, just like your lyin’ buddies Ann, Sean, Bill and Rush.
You said:
“I will post the original article from the Wall St. Journal on the blog to prove that you are a liar and a moon bat.”
So where is it? If you’re so confident that you can show the world what a liar and moon bat I am, surely you’d post it prominently on the front page of your blog, right? But you won’t, because you’re a liar and a coward.
And cut the “give me your name” and “$100k bet” grandstanding. That’s all pompous bloviation and a pathetic diversion and you know it.
Just post a scan of the letter and the matter will be resolved, and you will be shown to be a compulsive pathological liar, just like your lyin’ buddies Ann, Sean, Bill and Rush.
C’mon, coward - POST IT!
March 25th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Let me remind you that you called me a liar and accused me of omiting words from the original print version of the Wall St. Journal. If you are so sure that I omitted the words you have publically accused me of omitting than surely you will be willing to wager some money (I proposed 100K but am willing to wager as much as you would like)on it. You have called me every name in the book because you lact the requisite proof to substantiate your false claim. I will most the print version tomorrow. But first I think you owe it to everybody who has had to listen to your puerile rantings to put your money where your mouth is.
So I will ask you again if you will wager the money? That’s how we will “resolve” it.
Gregg
March 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Just shut up and post the letter, you lying coward. And don’t try any Photoshop monkey business either, because I have the means of catching that.
Put up or shut up. No more grandstanding, no more tough-guy bluster, no more stalling. Just post it.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I knew that a loud mouth like you would not have the guts to wager any money on it or have the guts to reveal your identity. You are quick to accuse others of being a liar. But when push comes to shove and somebody like me calls you on it, you fold like a cheap suit. I will post the exact printed edition of my letter to the editor on our blog and will at least expect an apology from you and an admittence that you were wrong in accusing me of omitting any words from the original print version.
But I won’t hold my breath. I know you are not capable of intellectual honesty or humility. You sound like an angry and very bitter person. I hope you get well soon Mr. “liar liar pants on fire.”
Gregg
March 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
[...] I posted this letter on the blog Feb 27,2007 the exact day that my letter to the editor was published in the Wall St. Journal and received this comment from a reader - we’ll refer to as “Mr. Personality” who goes by the very covert name of “bnkpm.” He’s a very secretive and bitter guy. “…I notice that you changed the version of your letter that you posted here to remove the “lowest in 30 years” lie, but the WSJ already published it. Slick move, liar.” [...]
March 30th, 2007 at 5:55 am
[...] I posted this letter on the blog Feb 27,2007 the exact day that my letter to the editor was published in the Wall St. Journal and received this comment from a reader - we’ll refer to as “Mr. Personality” who goes by the very covert name of “bnkpm.” He’s a very secretive and bitter guy. “…I notice that you changed the version of your letter that you posted here to remove the “lowest in 30 years” lie, but the WSJ already published it. Slick move, liar.” [...]