"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

[Mike[_7_]]

Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs....


Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms

Defense Daily

If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.

She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
week.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.

"Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."

However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."

For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
to get a $250,000 a year job there.

Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.

Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
South Lawn.

Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> social welfare programs....
>
> Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>
> Defense Daily
>
> If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>
> While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
> presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
> of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
> mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
> the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.
>
> She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
> Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
> week.
>
> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
> Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
> Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
> Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.
>
> "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
> spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
> overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."
>
> However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
> investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."
>
> For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
> for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
> unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
> official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
> refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
> to get a $250,000 a year job there.
>
> Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
> CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
> Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
> the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
> Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.
>
> Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
> Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
> on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
> Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
> South Lawn.
>
> Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
> brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
> company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
> percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

[La N]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
>> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
>> social welfare programs....
>>
>> Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>>
>> Defense Daily
>>
>> If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
>> nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
>> defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
>> Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>>
>> While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
>> presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
>> of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
>> mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
>> the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.
>>
>> She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
>> Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
>> week.
>>
>> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
>> Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
>> Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
>> Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.
>>
>> "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
>> spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
>> overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."
>>
>> However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
>> investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."
>>
>> For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
>> for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
>> unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
>> official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
>> refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
>> to get a $250,000 a year job there.
>>
>> Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
>> CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
>> Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
>> the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
>> Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.
>>
>> Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
>> Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
>> on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
>> Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
>> South Lawn.
>>
>> Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
>> brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
>> company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
>> percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.
>
> Remember Jimmy Carter?

What about Jimmy Carter?

And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
past year, does that mean that war is good for business?

- nilita

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> >> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> >> social welfare programs....
>
> >> Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>
> >> Defense Daily
>
> >> If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> >> nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> >> defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> >> Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>
> >> While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
> >> presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
> >> of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
> >> mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
> >> the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.
>
> >> She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
> >> Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
> >> week.
>
> >> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
> >> Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
> >> Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
> >> Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.
>
> >> "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
> >> spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
> >> overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."
>
> >> However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
> >> investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."
>
> >> For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
> >> for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
> >> unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
> >> official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
> >> refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
> >> to get a $250,000 a year job there.
>
> >> Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
> >> CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
> >> Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
> >> the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
> >> Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.
>
> >> Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
> >> Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
> >> on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
> >> Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
> >> South Lawn.
>
> >> Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
> >> brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
> >> company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
> >> percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.
>
> > Remember Jimmy Carter?
>
> What about Jimmy Carter?
>
> And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
> past year, does that mean that war is good for business?
>
> - nilita

War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
include NATO

Video
Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Countdown

Video

Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.


MSNBC
updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
“incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
“security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
would respond to that.”

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
use nuclear weapons.

Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
is to remain a credible candidate.



Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

[eyeball]

Please...EITHER of the candidates on that side is a nightmare.
But the lib media loves them and lemmings will follow anything...
expect to see a lot more of this...
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.04.10.OffColor-X.gif

[La N]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> >> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> >> social welfare programs....
>
> >> Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>
> >> Defense Daily
>
> >> If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> >> nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> >> defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> >> Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>
> >> While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
> >> presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
> >> of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
> >> mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
> >> the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.
>
> >> She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
> >> Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
> >> week.
>
> >> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
> >> Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
> >> Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
> >> Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.
>
> >> "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
> >> spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
> >> overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."
>
> >> However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
> >> investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."
>
> >> For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
> >> for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
> >> unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
> >> official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
> >> refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
> >> to get a $250,000 a year job there.
>
> >> Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
> >> CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
> >> Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
> >> the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
> >> Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.
>
> >> Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
> >> Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
> >> on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
> >> Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
> >> South Lawn.
>
> >> Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
> >> brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
> >> company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
> >> percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.
>
> > Remember Jimmy Carter?
>
> What about Jimmy Carter?
>
> And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in
> the
> past year, does that mean that war is good for business?
>
> - nilita

War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
include NATO

Video
Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Countdown

Video

Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.


MSNBC
updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
“incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
“security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
would respond to that.”

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
use nuclear weapons.

Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
is to remain a credible candidate.



Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

********************************

Okay, thanks for that.

- nilita

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>
>Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
>officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
>unjustified.

Are we overlooking George H.W. Bush, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower,
Harry S Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, Andrew Jackson,
Abraham Lincoln, Henry Harrison, George Washington, to name just a
few...?

Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate, presided over the collapse
of our greatest ally in the middle East, allowed our embassy to be
seized and then micro-managed the bungled rescue attempt, etc. etc.

And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...

One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.

....but executed poorly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> > Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> > social welfare programs....
> >
> > Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
> >
> > Defense Daily
> >
> > If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> > nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> > defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> > Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S.

[Dan[_9_]]

Translation: "The gravy boat may be sailing."

Dan

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> social welfare programs....

As with your toilet habits, your political ideas are of absolutely no
interest to me. Take it to a political group.

Vaughn

[eyeball]

On Apr 22, 6:30 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> > social welfare programs....
>
> As with your toilet habits, your political ideas are of absolutely no
> interest to me. Take it to a political group.
>
> Vaughn

I assume you won't take the poll regarding whether you wipe back to
front, or front to back?
:-Þ

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 22, 7:18 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Translation: "The gravy boat may be sailing."
>
> Dan

Let them learn to repair/rebuild bridges and highways.

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>
> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,

How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
>> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
>> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>
>How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>
>Glenn D.
>
Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
take the blame.

If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Dan[_9_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
>>> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
>>> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>> How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>>
>> Glenn D.
>>
> Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
> policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
> leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
> attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
> cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>
> If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
> years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
> the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
> instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
> take the blame.
>
> If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
> significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
major revolutions in the oil patch...

D'oh!

Dan

[Tiger]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Snip:
> And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...
>
> One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.
>
> ...but executed poorly.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros.

[Tiger]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
>>
>>>Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
>>>social welfare programs....
>>>
>>>Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>>>
>>>Defense Daily
>>>
>>>If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
>>>nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
>>>defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
>>>Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>>
>
> other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S.
>
>

Except Big spending Lib programs Generally mean Big Government rather
the private enterprise. Thus more money to the rat holes of midnight
Basketball, Head start, & God only knows what program they come up with
for this housing crisis.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Dan ha scritto:
>> Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[g lof2]

On Apr 23, 11:45*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Dan ha scritto:
>
> >> Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
> >> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>
> Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
> and "increases in federal revenue" ?
>
When we in the USA talk about tax cuts, we are real talking about
income tax rate cuts.

Our problem is that most people think that all you have to do to
increase governement revenue is increase the income tax rate. This is
true for people is the lower tax rates, but not true for people in
higher tax rate. That is because as income tax rate grow, it effect
how people generate income. The higher the income tax rate, the more
adventagest for people to do things to avoid being taxed on their
income. This reduces the amount of money the government take in. To
make things worst, this effect gets exponentually bigger ( more lost
revenue) as the taxs rates grow higher.

Now at some point, the lost in revenue outstrips the increases revenue
from the higher tax rate, increasing tax rate above that point results
in the government losing money.

Now some people claim that all the government has to do is pulg up
'tax loop holes' to 'fix' the problem, This does not realy work, since
there is two loopholes that can not be filled. One people can deal
taking their profits and let their current investment grow (very bad
for the economy) and secong they can invest their mont were the
government can't get it.

[Herbert Viola[_2_]]

In article >,
"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote:

> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
> > military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
> > inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>
> How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>
> Glenn D.

A fair objection. The rates were set by Paul Volker in a system designed
to shield the setting of interest rates from immediate political
control. Yet Volker was nominated my Carter, so there is some
connection. The concurrent high inflation and high unemployment rates of
the '70s does not fit well with standard economic theories, even after
all these years I have not seen a good academic explanation. I think
this is part of the reason that people don't take economics seriously
anymore.

The real problem with Carter was that he was a white Southerner who
supported segregation during the Civil Rights movement and tried to make
up for it later on by (deleted) any non-white person who came along.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 22, 10:42*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> > >> Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> > >> social welfare programs....
>
> > >> Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
>
> > >> Defense Daily
>
> > >> If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> > >> nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> > >> defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> > >> Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
>
> > >> While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
> > >> presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
> > >> of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
> > >> mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
> > >> the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.
>
> > >> She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
> > >> Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
> > >> week.
>
> > >> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
> > >> Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
> > >> Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
> > >> Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.
>
> > >> "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
> > >> spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
> > >> overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."
>
> > >> However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
> > >> investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."
>
> > >> For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
> > >> for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
> > >> unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
> > >> official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
> > >> refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
> > >> to get a $250,000 a year job there.
>
> > >> Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
> > >> CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
> > >> Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
> > >> the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
> > >> Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.
>
> > >> Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
> > >> Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
> > >> on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
> > >> Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
> > >> South Lawn.
>
> > >> Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
> > >> brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
> > >> company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
> > >> percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.
>
> > > Remember Jimmy Carter?
>
> > What about Jimmy Carter?
>
> > And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
> > past year, does that mean that war is good for business?
>
> > - nilita
>
> War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
> Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
> a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.
>
> Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
> Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
> include NATO
>
> Video
> * Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
> April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
> the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.
>
> Countdown
>
> Video
>
> * Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
> April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.
>
> MSNBC
> updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008
>
> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
> would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
> launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
>
> Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
> Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
> Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
> Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
> retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.
>
> In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
> leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
> provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”
>
> She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
> bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
> “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.
>
> “I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
> themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.
>
> Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
> “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
> region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
> tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
> attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
> would respond to that.”
>
> Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
> Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
> commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
> herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
> opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
> has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
> a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
> use nuclear weapons.
>
> Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
> Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
> analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
> is to remain a credible candidate.
>
> Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
> officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
> unjustified.- Hide quoted text -

Well, an active duty submariner is not the same thing as an active
duty officer.
Which is where GPS, Internet, Microcomputers, Fiber Optics, Cell
Phones,
Cruise Mssiles, laser-guided bombs, PV Cells, and AUVs, AAVs,
Drones,
and Robots, came for Carter in his idiot energy budget.





>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
>>>> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
>>>> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>>> How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>>>
>>> Glenn D.
>>>
>> Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
>> policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
>> leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
>> attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
>> cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>>
>> If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
>> years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
>> the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
>> instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
>> take the blame.
>>
>> If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
>> significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
>major revolutions in the oil patch...
>
>D'oh!
>
>Dan

You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:45:57 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:

>Dan ha scritto:
>>> Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>
>Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
>and "increases in federal revenue" ?
>
>Best regards from Italy,
>Dott. Piergiorgio.

A cut in marginal tax rate can result in increased productivity, new
job creation, a booming economy and consequently higher tax revenue.
When people keep their own money for investment and purchasing power,
they generally employ it in ways which grow the economy.

For details on the concept refer to the work of Arthur Laffer, and the
Laffer Curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Mark Sieving]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.

Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion?

Incidentally, since the Carter administration started January 20,
1977, how did an assertion by that administration cause shortages in
1976?

>And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

The 55 mph speed limit started in 1974, during Nixon's administration.

[David Phillips]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:


>
>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

I'm pretty darn sure the Carter administration did not take office
until January, 1977. The oil crisis that caused the enaction of the
55mph speed limit happened in 1973.

[J a c k]

Jack Linthicum wrote:

> Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
> officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
> unjustified.


"Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you
started reading USENET?

Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count
rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his
Presidency.

Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer.

And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another
fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON.


Jack

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 24, 9:41 am, J a c k > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
> > officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
> > unjustified.
>
> "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you
> started reading USENET?
>
> Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count
> rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his
> Presidency.
>
> Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer.
>
> And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another
> fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON.
>
> Jack

Truman was an artillery officer, yes, he was not a micro-manager. G.
Washington, was, as I have heard, not a micro-manager, perhaps not
even a manager. He had Hamilton for that.

Hamilton Jordan said it best about the Carter presidency before it had
even started, "If Cyrus Vance is the Secretary of State, we have
lost." Cyrus Vance was the SecState. Carter wanted everything to be on
his desk and signed off on before it was implemented. There was a
reason for that:

"A few reform-minded Democrats and intellectuals were starting to
rethink the premises of big government liberalism, to wonder if there
might be less expensive and bureaucratic--and more effective--means to
traditional liberal ends. Carter was inclined to agree with them. But
such thinking was anathema to the party's liberal leaders and most
powerful interest groups, and they were positioned to stop it.

When Carter took over as president, the nation's most pressing--and
consuming--problems were economic. Growth and worker productivity were
low, unemployment and federal deficits were high and rising, and, by
midway through the president's term, inflation and interest rates were
compounding at more than 10 percent annually. Carter's plan was to
balance the budget, slashing spending enough to also provide for a $15
billion tax cut which would act as an economic spur. Congress rejected
the package, insisting instead on an economic stimulus package (which
Carter reluctantly signed) consisting of $15 billion for public works
projects, urban aid, and education, the kind of program that reeked of
1933. This pattern was repeated throughout Carter's term, as unions
fought the president's calls for voluntary wage controls to combat
inflation, and Congress resisted Carter's repeated attempts to balance
the federal budget. The president proposed a budget for 1980 designed
to restore fiscal austerity and cut spending to keep the deficit for
that year under $30 billion. Congress insisted on restoring the cuts,
and by the end of the process, the budget was more than $60 billion in
the red.

The second great challenge the Democrats faced was an OPEC-induced
surge in energy prices. Carter came in with some good and some bad
ideas about how to alleviate the energy crisis. Democrats in Congress
rebuffed the president's best plan--Carter's attempt to lift the price
controls Richard Nixon had imposed on domestic energy. But
congressional Democrats eagerly adopted his bad ideas, including the
creation of the Department of Energy, which would become perhaps the
most dysfunctional agency in Washington. House Speaker Tip O'Neill set
up a task force to speed along passage of the authorizing bill,
getting the agency running in a matter of months. Congress happily
signed on in 1980 when Carter asked it to set up the Synthetic Fuels
Corporation. The program ultimately spent $88 billion subsidizing
American oil and gas companies to try to extract petroleum out of oil
shale, an enterprise only slightly more cost-effective than trying to
wring water from a stone. The SynFuels concept dispensed a lot of
taxpayer money to a lot of Democratic interest groups but did nothing
to solve the energy crisis."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.wallace-wells.html

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan > wrote:
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
>>>>> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
>>>>> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>>>> How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>>>>
>>>> Glenn D.
>>>>
>>> Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
>>> policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
>>> leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
>>> attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
>>> cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>>>
>>> If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
>>> years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
>>> the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
>>> instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
>>> take the blame.
>>>
>>> If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
>>> significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>> www.thunderchief.org
>>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>>Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
>>major revolutions in the oil patch...
>>
>>D'oh!
>>
>>Dan
>
>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.
>
OFCS Ed, put a sock in it. The 55 limit came in '74, Nixon was
still president. The out by 2000 was during the Ford admin.

It's time for you to recognise your irrational hatred of the man
and start looking things up.


Peter Skelton

[J a c k]

Peter Skelton wrote:


> ...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter]
> and start looking things up.


Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in
addition to his being a Democrat.

Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must
have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective
with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally
looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah
complex.


Jack

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 24, 10:40 am, J a c k > wrote:
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>
> > ...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter]
>
> > and start looking things up.
>
> Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in
> addition to his being a Democrat.
>
> Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must
> have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective
> with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally
> looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah
> complex.
>
> Jack

Is that with or without a contrary Congress? Couple of ME politicians
were very happy for his fingers in the pie, both countries still are.

[Bill Kambic]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

I think it was the Club of Rome in '68 that made those assertions on
"out of oil." Of course it heartily embraced by the Carter and the GA
Mafia.

The "double nickle" comes from the Nixon Administration. As a
practical matter it IS the quickest and and easiest way to increase
fleet milage. I pull a big horse trailer and if I slow down from 70
mph to 64 mph I get an almost 20% increase in milage.

Carter never understood The Bully Pulpit. He was an honorable man who
thought all other men were honorable, too. He was a man of his word
and thinks all others are, too. Witness his recent contacts and
assertions about Hamas.

He also pulled the rug out from under the Shah and failed to do
anyting to fill the resulting power vacuum, which resulted in the rise
of the Ayatollah Khomeni (sp) and the release of large scale relgious
fundamentalism fueled by petrodollars. He's still an honest and
honorable man. He still hasn't figured out that very few others are.

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:40:21 -0500, J a c k >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>
> > ...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter]
>> and start looking things up.
>
>
>Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in
>addition to his being a Democrat.
>
>Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must
>have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective
>with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally
>looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah
>complex.

You seem jealous.


Peter Skelton

[eyeball]

> the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans.
> the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government
> spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from
> the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious.

You forgot to take off your tinfoil hat long enough to insist 9/11 and
the security concerns since was a right wing conspiracy...

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 24, 3:16 pm, eyeball > wrote:
> > the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans.
> > the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government
> > spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from
> > the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious.
>
> You forgot to take off your tinfoil hat long enough to insist 9/11 and
> the security concerns since was a right wing conspiracy...

No, but falling asleep on the watch and using security as a shield
against illegal activity might fall into that category. Plus the
obvious fascination with torture even before any al Qaeda prisoners
were available.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303249.html?nav=rss_politics

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> >
...
> >
> >>On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
> >>>social welfare programs....
> >>>
> >>>Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms
> >>>
> >>>Defense Daily
> >>>
> >>>If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
> >>>nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
> >>>defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
> >>>Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.
> >>
> >
> > other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S.
> >
> >
>
> Except Big spending Lib programs Generally mean Big Government rather
> the private enterprise. Thus more money to the rat holes of midnight
> Basketball, Head start, & God only knows what program they come up with
> for this housing crisis.
>

the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans.
the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government
spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from
the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious.

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Snip:
> > And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...
> >
> > One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.
> >
> > ...but executed poorly.
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > www.thunderchief.org
> > www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>
> I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros.
>

you mean like bush,cheney and rice?????????
some "pros"

and your hero reagan was king of the "cut and runners" unlike you present
days wingnut fools , the traitor reagan was not blinded by ideaology

[eyeball]

On Apr 24, 3:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > barked:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/more/barking_moonbat3.jpg

[Dan[_9_]]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Dan ha scritto:
>>> Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>
> Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
> and "increases in federal revenue" ?
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

Well, with any change in the tax codes, people with large stakes of
sedentary investments are encouraged to shift them around. basically, a
tax cut on investments acts as a moratorium/amnesty: we'll forgive you
if you pay us. If rates are 50% and you have $1 million in profits, you
might be enticed to sell those assets if you lower the rate to 25% (for
an almost instantaneous gain of 25% on those assets).

Conversely, if rates are low, and you hold a gain, if the government
raises rates, then you are enticed to sell NOW to lock in the lower rate.

Such activities create a bunch of secondary profits (markets, brokers,
managers who manage the "new" money), so it looks, temporarily, that the
economy has grown when all that was done was to pass paper around. The
government take from this new activity is very short term, but the
tax-cutters point to it as proof that lowering taxes generates
additional revenue (failing to mention that the increases are temporary,
at best).

Please to note that the "spending orgy by the congress" was, in fact,
not an increase in spending independent from the tax cuts, but was a
part of them. Note also that Reagan never submitted a budget that was
ever even close to what was passed in Congress - Congressional budgets
were always WAY lower than Reagan wanted. Note also that Reagan gets
credit for the tax cuts (passed by Congress) but no blame for the
spending, which increases were mostly his bloated military boondoggles,
which EVEN the Pentagon stated openly were obscenely more than they
needed or wanted...

Acolytes of St. Ronnie are an interesting breed... Like other religious
fanatics, they ignore the facts to maintain their belief in the
canonical infallibility of their cult leader.

Dan

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Dan ha scritto:
>>> Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>
> Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
> and "increases in federal revenue" ?
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

Reagan spent borrowed money.

Andrew Swallow

[Dan[_9_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
>>>>> military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
>>>>> inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
>>>> How did a president 'give' us those rates?
>>>>
>>>> Glenn D.
>>>>
>>> Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
>>> policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
>>> leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
>>> attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
>>> cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
>>> revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)
>>>
>>> If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
>>> years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
>>> the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
>>> instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
>>> take the blame.
>>>
>>> If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
>>> significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>> www.thunderchief.org
>>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>> Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
>> major revolutions in the oil patch...
>>
>> D'oh!
>>
>> Dan
>
> You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
> Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
> And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

How could I >>forget<< something that exists only in your fervid
imagination?

If you are going to tell a lie, at least it should make sense and be
internally consistent...

Dan

[Bob Matthews]

Mark Sieving wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
>> You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>> Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>
> Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion?
>
> Incidentally, since the Carter administration started January 20,
> 1977, how did an assertion by that administration cause shortages in
> 1976?
>
>> And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.
>
> The 55 mph speed limit started in 1974, during Nixon's administration.

No kidding. Professor Ed's knowledge of history matches his skill at
economic analysis. Maybe next he'll accuse Jane Fonda of imposing wage
and price controls in August of 1971.

Typical crackpot blather.

Cheers

==bob

[Bob Matthews]

David Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>> Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>> And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.
>
> I'm pretty darn sure the Carter administration did not take office
> until January, 1977. The oil crisis that caused the enaction of the
> 55mph speed limit happened in 1973.

How dare you cite facts that contradict Professor Ed's dogma? The fact
that he's two Presidents off does nothing to diminish the elegance of
his reasoning.

Cheers

==bob
>

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 24, 3:16 pm, eyeball > wrote:
> > > the government has never been bigger than it is now under the
republicans.
> > > the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and
government
> > > spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from
> > > the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious.
> >
> > You forgot to take off your tinfoil hat long enough to insist 9/11 and
> > the security concerns since was a right wing conspiracy...
>
> No, but falling asleep on the watch and using security as a shield
> against illegal activity might fall into that category. Plus the
> obvious fascination with torture even before any al Qaeda prisoners
> were available.
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303249.html?nav=rss_politics


eyelash is a classic.
he screams "conspiricy theorist" at any who don't worship bush.

[Cubdriver]

>>Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
>>and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Sure. Federal revenues today are higher than they were in 2000. That's
because Bush cut taxes.

Same thing happened when Reagan cut taxes.

Same thing happened when Kennedy cut taxes.

Lower taxe RATES = more economic activity in areas exposed to taxes.
Works especially well when it comes to capital gains. Nobody has to
pay a capital gains tax; it's entirely optional. At Bush's 15 percent,
people don't mind taking profits and paying the tax on them. At
Obama's 28 percent, the money will mostly stay locked up, and 28
percent of nothing is ... nothing.

When faced with this fact at the Philadelphia "debate", Obama was
quite honest. It was all about fairness, he said. In other words, no
matter if the revenue goes down!


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:54:26 -0500, Mark Sieving
> wrote:

>>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>
>Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion?

Actually, I recall it as "twenty-five years".

It was much cited around here, where Onassis wanted to build an oil
refinery. No point, went the argument; there would be no oil left in
twenty-five years.

It was the conventional wisdom, and it remains the conventional
wisdom, though it's phrased a bit more intelligently now.

So Ed in my judgment was a year off, and the shortage of course wasn't
caused by the assertion but by the gas rationing.

You can ration by administrative fiat, as Carter did, or you can
ration by price, as Reagan did. Price works better. My heart really
bleeds when I see those TV film clips about the suffering American
middle class paying $100 to fill up its SUV. I bought my first new car
in 1962. It was a VW Beetle that got 30 mpg. (Yeah, yeah, dangerous as
hell. I get the sweats when I look at a Beetle today and recall that I
drove that thing twice across the country.) I've always had
fuel-efficient cars, and while I don't particularly care to spend
$3.50 a gallon, I'll pay it if that's what it takes to clear the
market.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Mark Sieving]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:48:00 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>Sure. Federal revenues today are higher than they were in 2000. That's
>because Bush cut taxes.

This is what is technically referred to as a post hoc ergo prompter
hoc fallacy.

Federal tax revenues for 2007 were about $100 billion more than in
2000. Federal tax revenues were about $1,000 billion more in 2000
than they were in 1992.

While there's no doubt that an excessive tax rate will reduce total
revenue, total tax revenue has been increasing pretty steadily for the
past forty years, regardless of whatever tweaks have been made to
marginal tax rates. The exception to that steady increase was in GW
Bush's first term, between 2000 and 2003, when total revenue dropped
about 400 billion dollars.

[Mark Sieving]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:56:22 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:54:26 -0500, Mark Sieving
> wrote:
>
>>>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>>>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>>
>>Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion?
>
>Actually, I recall it as "twenty-five years".
>
>It was much cited around here, where Onassis wanted to build an oil
>refinery. No point, went the argument; there would be no oil left in
>twenty-five years.

But who in the Carter administration said this, when, and in what
context?

[Bert Hyman]

In Mark Sieving
> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:56:22 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
> net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:54:26 -0500, Mark Sieving
> wrote:
>>
>>>>You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
>>>>Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
>>>
>>>Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion?
>>
>>Actually, I recall it as "twenty-five years".
>>
>>It was much cited around here, where Onassis wanted to build an oil
>>refinery. No point, went the argument; there would be no oil left in
>>twenty-five years.
>
> But who in the Carter administration said this, when, and in what
> context?

You'll have to ignore for a moment the fact that Carter didn't take
office 'til 1977, so no statement of his administration could have
caused an oil shortage in 1976.

Still:

Jimmy Carter
The Energy Problem: Address to the Nation.
April 18th, 1977

The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our
energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort,
domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6
percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our
Nation's economic and political independence is becoming
increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to
lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980's
the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=7369


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Dave[_20_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>SNIP
>
>SNIP
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.

Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt,
Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did.

And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.

[Mark Sieving]

On 26 Apr 2008 17:53:03 GMT, Bert Hyman > wrote:

>Jimmy Carter
>The Energy Problem: Address to the Nation.
>April 18th, 1977

Thanks.

[g lof2]

On Apr 26, 10:20*am, Mark Sieving > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:48:00 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
>
> net> wrote:
> >Sure. Federal revenues today are higher than they were in 2000. That's
> >because Bush cut taxes.
>
> This is what is technically referred to as a post hoc ergo prompter
> hoc fallacy.
>
> Federal tax revenues for 2007 were about $100 billion more than in
> 2000. *Federal tax revenues were about $1,000 billion more in 2000
> than they were in 1992.
>
> While there's no doubt that an excessive tax rate will reduce total
> revenue, total tax revenue has been increasing pretty steadily for the
> past forty years, regardless of whatever tweaks have been made to
> marginal tax rates. *The exception to that steady increase was in GW
> Bush's first term, between 2000 and 2003, when total revenue dropped
> about 400 billion dollars.

The problem comes when people think in terms of the gross economy and
gross taxes/tax rates. The believe created during the Reagan years
that all taxs cuts will cause economic growth that will in turn
increase tax revenue was based a wrong understanding of the Laffer
curve. This combined with some very poor economic education is the
reason for this myth continuation. Not all taxs cuts will increase tax
revenues or grow the economy.

The think we must remember is the economy is made up of hundered of
millions of individuals, each of which operates in what they consider
their own self interest. What we know as the gross national product
(GNP) is the summation if all these individual income. Now while must
people think every body acts the same in the everybody else, the
reality is that everybody acts different, because nobody situation is
the same. Therefore it is impossible to model our economy using gross
method, it can be done only by complex multi dimension models that
take these individual differneces into account.

Now consider that with our progress tax rates system, some of those
individuals, the rich productive ones, are given less incentive to
produce that those which are taxed less becuse of the high tax rates
they are force to pay on income.. The rich therefore start producing
less, or at least producing less of what is taxed ( ie income). This
result of course in decreased government revenue since there is less
to taxs, And since the wealth poeple control such a large percentage
of the GNP, they produce a extremel high proportion of the
governement take revenue. Which means as they produce less, the
governments revenues fall even quicker.

From these points it becomes clear that if the lawmakers want to
increase government revenues, they must reduce the tax rate paid by
the rich and forget making tax cut for the poor.

One more thing, since the rich will be provided with increased
incentive to generate income, they will naturally increase the income
they produce. That inturn will increase the GNP which is the
measurement of the size of the economy most often used. This is why
cutting taxes of the high income people, the 'rich', is responsible
for 'economic growth.'

[Dave[_20_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>SNIP
> Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
> officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
> unjustified.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.
>
> Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
> Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
> Washington all did.
>
> And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
> Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
> with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.
>
Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
Monterey.

[Andrew Venor]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>SNIP
>> Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
>> officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
>> unjustified.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.
>>
>> Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
>> Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
>> Washington all did.
>>
>> And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
>> Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
>> with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.
>>
> Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
> Monterey.

I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil
War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a
captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from
Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed
above.

ALV

[Dave[_20_]]

"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" > wrote:
>>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>> Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
>>> officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
>>> unjustified.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.
>>>
>>> Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
>>> Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
>>> Washington all did.
>>>
>>> And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
>>> Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty
>>> familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.
>>>
>> Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
>> Monterey.
>
> I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil
> War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a
> captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from
> Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed
> above.
>
> ALV
>
Thanks. I didn't know about McKinely's service.