F-102 pilot kicks sailors ass

[D. Strang]

Bush on JFKerry:

"The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements,
He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way,
I'm not too worried, because

I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."

[Nemo l'ancien]

D. Strang a écrit :

>Bush on JFKerry:
>
>"The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements,
>He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way,
>I'm not too worried, because
>
> I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
>
>
>
>
By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>
> By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter?
>

No, it isn't. Freedom-loving people all over the world benefit when America
sends troops abroad.

[Nemo l'ancien]

>
>
>
Yeap, ask Irakis now...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeap, ask Irakis now...
>

Iraqis have been asked. They agree.

[D. Strang]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote
>
> Yeap, ask Irakis now...

or the real French who survived the German penal system.

Ask my buried uncle in Forbach what he thought about the
Americans and Freedom. He'll vote for armed support every
time, rather than the collaborators (like your family).

[Rojo2G]

>He'll vote for armed support every time, rather >than the collaborators (like
your family).
And we will burn every last drop of your oil and give you reruns of The
Simpsons to ponder and be roll models for your Iraqi children.
It isn't about your country or freedom, its about your oil.

[D. Strang]

"Rojo2G" > wrote
>
> It isn't about your country or freedom, its about your oil.

Whenever the mind snaps shut, there's always the mundane.

The West is awash in oil. Currently it is too cheap, and this
has resulted in waste. Every time you look at your town and
see lights everywhere burning in daylight, you can thank
yourself for the waste.

We need Iraqi oil, like we need another Las Vegas.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Nemo l'ancien > wrote:

> Yeap, ask Irakis now...

It's been done several times in the past couple of weeks.

Example from a recent poll commissioned by ABC News and
the BBC by Oxford Research International:

"Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days -
very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?"

71% - Very or quite good.
29% - Quite or very bad.

You didn't happen to miss out on any oil monies, by any chance?

[Lawrence Dillard]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:XW67c.2445$Gg.2318@okepread03...
> Bush on JFKerry:
>
> "The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements,
> He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way,
> I'm not too worried, because
>
> I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."

Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.

Overseas: IRAQ and WMD, continued existence of Al Quaida, Korea, alienation
of European friends and Allies, migration of thousands of formerly US jobs
offshore. Climbing US KIA and WIA totals.

At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing.

He's got a lot of backing and filling to do over his last November's
somewhat tainted Medicare prescription drug plan, at the time called a
"centerpiece" of his re-election campaign. At a time when the deficit was
already soaring, Mr Bush claimed that its cost would be, oh, some $400
billion over a period of ten years, although government analysts had--some
five months earlier--predicted that the actual cost would be closer to $550
billion. Alas, correction proved necessary, and one Republican congressman
accused his own party's leadership of attempted bribery on the floor of the
House (reportedly now under FBI investigation) as a part of the vigorous
arm-twisting which took place.

The actuaries who generated the "true" figure say that Bush admin appointees
violated ethical standards by ordering the actuaries to conceal their
findings from both Congress (congressmen who specifically inquired about the
cost estimates were told that none existed) as well as the public at large,
on pain of losing their jobs.

Two months after the critical vote, Mr Bush claimed that he was "shocked" to
discover that the actual cost had increased to $534 billion; one wonders
whether the bill would have passed had the true numbers been known.

Furthermore, Almost a month before convincing Congress to vote to commit the
US to warfare with Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration has admitted, it
learned the N Korea had resumed its nuclear program, a fact which did not
bode well for the US' strategic situation. That is, the possibility of
armed conflict in Korea had risen sharply; one wonders how the Congress
might have voted had it known of this renewed threat in timely fashion.
Would it have been willing to authorize commitment of US troops there?
Congress and the public were kept ignorant of this important fact until
after the Iraq vote was history.

Additionally, During the run-up to the Iraq war vote, Mr Bush's
adminstration told Congress it had no idea of the costs to be sustained in
carrying out this war. A member of the White House's National Economic
Counsel, however, admitted that the war was expected to cost some $100
billion to $200 billion, (considerably higher than unoffcial Pentagon
estimates) it led to his dismissal.

How much will occupying Iraq cost the US in 2005? So far, that figure is not
to be found in the budget submitted to Congress, which is no more than a
ruse to keep the projected deficit for 2005 artificially low. Budget is to
take effect in October of this year, yet Mr Bush won't release his request
for additional funds to coveroccupation costs until January, well after the
election.

At home: "It's the ECONOMY, Stupid".

One of my acquaintances lost his job during the last year when a
nationally-positioned ISP exported his position (as well as those of quite a
few others) to India as a cost-cutting measure. Unemployment and
job-creation here are still troublesome, ironically because Americans are
simply too darned hard-working and productive to allow for new hiring (oh,
and we cost too much, besides) during these times. And simultaneously, Mr
Bush's policies, oddly, encourage the hiring of large numbers of
less-well-paid workers offshore, whose productivity does not match that of
our own, while offering, as a remedy for the lost jobs, as much as $25
million for job-retraining for the dismissed US workers (a teardrop in a
bucket).

On March 22, a decision of some sort is expected over the F-22. Indications
are that the current review by the Office of Management and Budget is
slightly canted, as a negative decision has been predicted. Alas. If the US
intends to continue with its much-reduced military manpower levels, and
still give military substance to its declared internatinal positions, it
will need every possible force-multiplier it can lay its hands on, and not
only in terms of aircraft. Maybe it might even be wise to dust off that
incredible artillery system with its massive, sustained firepower, get it
ito production and get it online?


..

[D. Strang]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote
>
> > I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
>
> Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
> to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.

The reason Bush won't be re-elected, is he has never vetoed a spending bill.

He did the tax cut to give back the surplus, and then signed bills to spend
the money anyway. Enron was an amateur comparably.

I'm trying to get my representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment
that says basically, that the budget (as per the CBO) will be balanced two
years out of seven.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:XW67c.2445$Gg.2318@okepread03...
> > Bush on JFKerry:
> >
> > "The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements,
> > He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either
way,
> > I'm not too worried, because
> >
> > I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
>
> Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
> to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.

April.

> Overseas: IRAQ and WMD, continued existence of Al Quaida, Korea,
alienation
> of European friends and Allies, migration of thousands of formerly US jobs
> offshore. Climbing US KIA and WIA totals.

Saddam believed he had WMD, al Qaeda's existance is at risk now, Korea is in
negotiation with China and Japan, our European friends have bribery problems
to deal with, there are more payroll jobs today than when Clinton left
office

And last but not least, Billy's military body count ran higher.

> At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing.

I doubt GW could have been more straightforward, but I do not doubt your
angst.

> He's got a lot of backing and filling to do over his last November's
> somewhat tainted Medicare prescription drug plan, at the time called a
> "centerpiece" of his re-election campaign. At a time when the deficit was
> already soaring, Mr Bush claimed that its cost would be, oh, some $400
> billion over a period of ten years, although government analysts had--some
> five months earlier--predicted that the actual cost would be closer to
$550
> billion. Alas, correction proved necessary, and one Republican
congressman
> accused his own party's leadership of attempted bribery on the floor of
the
> House (reportedly now under FBI investigation) as a part of the vigorous
> arm-twisting which took place.

No, only the CBO numbers are legal. The rest of what you write is just so
much wishfull bull****.

> The actuaries who generated the "true" figure say that Bush admin
appointees
> violated ethical standards by ordering the actuaries to conceal their
> findings from both Congress (congressmen who specifically inquired about
the
> cost estimates were told that none existed) as well as the public at
large,
> on pain of losing their jobs.

That kind of Democrat lieing only makes you look foolish, Dillard.

> Two months after the critical vote, Mr Bush claimed that he was "shocked"
to
> discover that the actual cost had increased to $534 billion; one wonders
> whether the bill would have passed had the true numbers been known.

The Democrat's plan would have been $1 trillion, so we are bucks ahead and
grandma can get her drugs and not have to eat cat food.

> Furthermore, Almost a month before convincing Congress to vote to commit
the
> US to warfare with Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration has admitted, it
> learned the N Korea had resumed its nuclear program, a fact which did not
> bode well for the US' strategic situation. That is, the possibility of
> armed conflict in Korea had risen sharply; one wonders how the Congress
> might have voted had it known of this renewed threat in timely fashion.
> Would it have been willing to authorize commitment of US troops there?
> Congress and the public were kept ignorant of this important fact until
> after the Iraq vote was history.

Only the ignorant were ignorant of what North Korea were doing. (ie Carter)

<snip of more of the same>

[Lawrence Dillard]

Mr Tarver, please do me the enormous favor of placing my posts in your
permanent kill-file. I will be greatly relieved. After all, are you sure you
understand the meaning of the word "angst"? And are you certain you could
recognize a democrat even if one sat on your face? Thanks in advance for
granting me the favor I ask....

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> > news:XW67c.2445$Gg.2318@okepread03...
> > > Bush on JFKerry:
> > >
> > > "The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important
endorsements,
> > > He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either
> way,
> > > I'm not too worried, because
> > >
> > > I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
> >
> > Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas
issues
> > to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.
>
> April.
>
> > Overseas: IRAQ and WMD, continued existence of Al Quaida, Korea,
> alienation
> > of European friends and Allies, migration of thousands of formerly US
jobs
> > offshore. Climbing US KIA and WIA totals.
>
> Saddam believed he had WMD, al Qaeda's existance is at risk now, Korea is
in
> negotiation with China and Japan, our European friends have bribery
problems
> to deal with, there are more payroll jobs today than when Clinton left
> office
>
> And last but not least, Billy's military body count ran higher.
>
> > At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing.
>
> I doubt GW could have been more straightforward, but I do not doubt your
> angst.
>
> > He's got a lot of backing and filling to do over his last November's
> > somewhat tainted Medicare prescription drug plan, at the time called a
> > "centerpiece" of his re-election campaign. At a time when the deficit
was
> > already soaring, Mr Bush claimed that its cost would be, oh, some $400
> > billion over a period of ten years, although government analysts
had--some
> > five months earlier--predicted that the actual cost would be closer to
> $550
> > billion. Alas, correction proved necessary, and one Republican
> congressman
> > accused his own party's leadership of attempted bribery on the floor of
> the
> > House (reportedly now under FBI investigation) as a part of the vigorous
> > arm-twisting which took place.
>
> No, only the CBO numbers are legal. The rest of what you write is just so
> much wishfull bull****.
>
> > The actuaries who generated the "true" figure say that Bush admin
> appointees
> > violated ethical standards by ordering the actuaries to conceal their
> > findings from both Congress (congressmen who specifically inquired about
> the
> > cost estimates were told that none existed) as well as the public at
> large,
> > on pain of losing their jobs.
>
> That kind of Democrat lieing only makes you look foolish, Dillard.
>
> > Two months after the critical vote, Mr Bush claimed that he was
"shocked"
> to
> > discover that the actual cost had increased to $534 billion; one wonders
> > whether the bill would have passed had the true numbers been known.
>
> The Democrat's plan would have been $1 trillion, so we are bucks ahead and
> grandma can get her drugs and not have to eat cat food.
>
> > Furthermore, Almost a month before convincing Congress to vote to commit
> the
> > US to warfare with Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration has admitted,
it
> > learned the N Korea had resumed its nuclear program, a fact which did
not
> > bode well for the US' strategic situation. That is, the possibility of
> > armed conflict in Korea had risen sharply; one wonders how the Congress
> > might have voted had it known of this renewed threat in timely fashion.
> > Would it have been willing to authorize commitment of US troops there?
> > Congress and the public were kept ignorant of this important fact until
> > after the Iraq vote was history.
>
> Only the ignorant were ignorant of what North Korea were doing. (ie
Carter)
>
> <snip of more of the same>
>
>

[John Keeney]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeap, ask Irakis now...

OK, here's Ali's take on it as he wrote it at
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
....
"Since we are now talking about your stance, let's take a look at why do you
(the true pacifists) oppose this war.

"I think that most agree that when we talk about the (true pacifists) then
we are pointing to those living in the free world, as the 3rd world people
are either disinterested and busy in trying to feed their children and find
an appropriate shelter for their families, while they struggle to stay as
far as possible away from the tyrannies that control their fate, which may
force them to follow their governments attitude, or they are driven by
religious fanaticism, and in the Arab world probably by Arab nationalism to
stand against this war.

"Peace is what those (true pacifists) are struggling for and there can be no
nobler goal than this, but may I ask one questions here?

"Where do you live!? A stupid and irrelevant question? I don't think so.

"Which peace are you seeking? Yours or that of the world, and which order
you are trying to maintain? That of your countries or of the whole world? Do
you really think that it's such a wonderful and peaceful world that no one
should be allowed to mess with? But what a stupid question is that on my
part!! Of course it is! I mean some of you probably hadn't heard a gun shot
in months or years, and some of you live in countries that haven't fought
any war in more than a century.

"Your lives certainly have not been that easy for sure, but did you ever
fear that your children might starve to death? Or did you live your life
with the horror of a kick that break your doors open, in the middle of the
night, to take you or one of your family members to the unknown? And worse
than that- which seems to you not a big deal- did you have to bend your
heads and fix your eyes to the ground and never raise it fearing it may meet
those of a security guard and get misinterpreted as a challenge!!? Oh my
God! Here I go asking stupid questions again! As of course all of this is
not a big deal, because if you felt it is such a huge injustice and a
humiliation to the sacred soul inside each one of God's creatures, not to
mention human beings, you wouldn't wait SO patiently for the sanctions to
work and for the inspectors to finish their job. Of course it's not a big
deal, and you know why? Simply because it didn't happen to YOU. It happened
to the others who lived so far away that it made it less real for you and
you simply could throw all these behind you when you come to discuss the
war, and ONLY now, you are suddenly worried about how the Americans are
treating us!!? I have one thing to answer that: the Americans don't 'treat'
us; they help, protect, teach, love and make friends with us. Hard to
swallow for you, I know, because it makes you look so bad to yourselves, but
that's not as bad as it seems since we all make mistakes and HUGE ones and
it's never too late to admit that we were wrong.
Am I so stupid and naive to expect you to change your minds? No, because I
still believe that you are good people and I'm relying on this when I say
that I have hope in you and will never look to you as enemies.
....
"I could talk for years, and there are MUCH more painful stories but my
heart cannot take it to remember all this pain. I hope you have a stronger
heart as you explain to those people that you stood against their salvation
and allowed their misery to continue because you think your politicians lied
to you about the reasons for this war. Try to tell them that this was the
doing of America not Saddam and that's why you stood against her when she
tried to remove him and give them freedom AND peace, the peace of mind and
heart!!

Again my stupid question: where do you live? As we, who support this war
against dictatorship and terrorism, live in this world, this ugly world we
are trying to change as persistently as you try to keep it as it is with the
same strength and persistence. So. where do you live?"

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:01:16 -0600, "D. Strang"
> wrote:

>"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote
>>
>> > I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
>>
>> Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
>> to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.
>
>The reason Bush won't be re-elected, is he has never vetoed a spending bill.

You state a fact but grossly over-simplify a conclusion. The Supreme
Court has over-turned the "line-item" veto making it necessary to take
bills in toto rather than excise specific pork items. The trend from
Congress is increasingly to load up popular bills with amendments
bringing home the bacon. Back-scratching between
representatives/senators to guarantee passage of the principal bill
means a load of budget-busters included.

If we start with the essential truism that appropriations bills start
in the house, the conclusion might be that it isn't the President that
is creating budget problems.
>
>He did the tax cut to give back the surplus, and then signed bills to spend
>the money anyway. Enron was an amateur comparably.

The Enron statement is a throw-away. A non-sequitur and inflammatory.

The tax cut was not to "give back the surplus" but to stimulate the
economy. The basic difference between conservative and liberal
approaches to the economy is that conservatives tend to believe that
individuals can best spend their own money.

Signing bills is only part of the process. Congress initiates,
debates, amends and then through passage reflects the "will of the
electorate" when they send bills forward to the President. Culpability
does not reside solely with the executive.
>
>I'm trying to get my representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment
>that says basically, that the budget (as per the CBO) will be balanced two
>years out of seven.

How very popular! But, impractical. First, the CBO is a suspiciously
political instrument and motivated by other factors than pure
accounting. Second, deficit spending is a necessary practice for both
long term capital investment and to respond to unforeseen
contingencies. Third, the ability to build infrastructure and pay it
off in future year dollars will often mandate defiict spending. (We do
it regularly in our personal budgets when we buy homes or cars.)


>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> You state a fact but grossly over-simplify a conclusion. The Supreme
> Court has over-turned the "line-item" veto making it necessary to take
> bills in toto rather than excise specific pork items. The trend from
> Congress is increasingly to load up popular bills with amendments
> bringing home the bacon. Back-scratching between
> representatives/senators to guarantee passage of the principal bill
> means a load of budget-busters included.
>

Quite right. That vile tactic will continue as long as it is successful.
Presidents need to veto these bills and make it clear why they're being
vetoed.

[D. Strang]

"Ed Rasimus" wrote
> "D. Strang" wrote:
>
> >The reason Bush won't be re-elected, is he has never vetoed a spending bill.
>
> You state a fact but grossly over-simplify a conclusion. The Supreme
> Court has over-turned the "line-item" veto making it necessary to take
> bills in toto rather than excise specific pork items. The trend from
> Congress is increasingly to load up popular bills with amendments
> bringing home the bacon. Back-scratching between
> representatives/senators to guarantee passage of the principal bill
> means a load of budget-busters included.

The White House (I'm not even blaming the President, but the whole
Executive) seems to be saying; that, as long as we get our program
through, then we really don't care what it costs.

> If we start with the essential truism that appropriations bills start
> in the house, the conclusion might be that it isn't the President that
> is creating budget problems.

I believe it starts with the budget from the Executive, and snow-balls
from that start.

> >He did the tax cut to give back the surplus, and then signed bills to spend
> >the money anyway. Enron was an amateur comparably.
>
> The Enron statement is a throw-away. A non-sequitur and inflammatory.

Enron is synonymous with accounting schemes. Anything but the truth.
We now operate on 10, 20, and 30 year plans. In 30 years we will
balance the budget they say, but then can't even predict six months in
advance on any specific chart leader. To top it off, we don't really know
anything except what the debt is, because banks use computers.

> The tax cut was not to "give back the surplus" but to stimulate the
> economy. The basic difference between conservative and liberal
> approaches to the economy is that conservatives tend to believe that
> individuals can best spend their own money.

You are simplifying too much. When the Republicans won the Executive,
the Congress was spending the surplus in small ways. It was a great
temptation. First, they needed to get rid of the surplus, and the debate
about paying down the debt, lost out to giving everyone some money
back. But then the market crashed. Nobody even remembers what they
spent the $300 on, but it was probably imports at Wal-Mart.

> >I'm trying to get my representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment
> >that says basically, that the budget (as per the CBO) will be balanced two
> >years out of seven.
>
> How very popular! But, impractical. First, the CBO is a suspiciously
> political instrument and motivated by other factors than pure
> accounting. Second, deficit spending is a necessary practice for both
> long term capital investment and to respond to unforeseen
> contingencies. Third, the ability to build infrastructure and pay it
> off in future year dollars will often mandate defiict spending. (We do
> it regularly in our personal budgets when we buy homes or cars.)

The only other measure would be "Percent of GDP", which is even more
artistic. CBO is used in all Executive budget computations. Currently we are
paying about 300 Billion a year in interest (300 Billion is the same as 6 million
$50k a year jobs, or almost the same as what we budget for DOD. That's
a lot of F-22's we could have bought.

All of that makes sense until the debt number is written down. There's no
way that 7,000 Billion can be compared with buying a new home or car.

Time to pay off the debt, not spend more.

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:01:16 -0600, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote
> >>
> >> > I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."
> >>
> >> Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
> >> to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.
> >
> >The reason Bush won't be re-elected, is he has never vetoed a spending bill.
>
> You state a fact but grossly over-simplify a conclusion. The Supreme
> Court has over-turned the "line-item" veto making it necessary to take
> bills in toto rather than excise specific pork items. The trend from
> Congress is increasingly to load up popular bills with amendments
> bringing home the bacon. Back-scratching between
> representatives/senators to guarantee passage of the principal bill
> means a load of budget-busters included.
>
> If we start with the essential truism that appropriations bills start
> in the house, the conclusion might be that it isn't the President that
> is creating budget problems.
> >
> >He did the tax cut to give back the surplus, and then signed bills to spend
> >the money anyway. Enron was an amateur comparably.
>
> The Enron statement is a throw-away. A non-sequitur and inflammatory.
>
> The tax cut was not to "give back the surplus" but to stimulate the
> economy. The basic difference between conservative and liberal
> approaches to the economy is that conservatives tend to believe that
> individuals can best spend their own money.
>
> Signing bills is only part of the process. Congress initiates,
> debates, amends and then through passage reflects the "will of the
> electorate" when they send bills forward to the President. Culpability
> does not reside solely with the executive.
> >
> >I'm trying to get my representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment
> >that says basically, that the budget (as per the CBO) will be balanced two
> >years out of seven.
>
> How very popular! But, impractical. First, the CBO is a suspiciously
> political instrument and motivated by other factors than pure
> accounting. Second, deficit spending is a necessary practice for both
> long term capital investment and to respond to unforeseen
> contingencies. Third, the ability to build infrastructure and pay it
> off in future year dollars will often mandate defiict spending. (We do
> it regularly in our personal budgets when we buy homes or cars.)
>
> >
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Well, what about this statement from the Republican Party Platform?

Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our
families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable
to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our
support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

Bob McKellar

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:37:01 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>Well, what about this statement from the Republican Party Platform?
>
>Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our
>families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable
>to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our
>support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.
>
>Bob McKellar

It seems that somewhere about 18 months after that platform statement
there was a little altercation in New York city that blew all economic
predictions out the window (no puns intended.)

To be realistic, platforms are statements of general principles.
You'll also find statements in the Republican platform on
right-to-life, school prayer, vouchers, tax rates, etc. etc. etc.
While they sound good, they tend to be pure populism--an attempt to
appeal to the base while simultaneously offering "something for
everyone." Most importantly, there should be the recognition
(disappointing though it may be) that platforms bind no one.

If we were to be bound by a Constitutional Amendment to balance the
budget every year, we would be left unable to respond to exceptional
circumstances such as 9/11.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>
> If we were to be bound by a Constitutional Amendment to balance the
> budget every year, we would be left unable to respond to exceptional
> circumstances such as 9/11.

Any such amendment would be extreemly deflationary.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > If we were to be bound by a Constitutional Amendment to balance the
> > budget every year, we would be left unable to respond to exceptional
> > circumstances such as 9/11.
>
> Any such amendment would be extreemly deflationary.

Flat-out ruinous, frankly, and therefore foolish. Balanced budgets are
a good idea, but not everything that affects spending requirements is
in the government's control, so they need the flexibility -- the
borrowing power -- to deal with the things that are not.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[D. Strang]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote
> > >
> > > If we were to be bound by a Constitutional Amendment to balance the
> > > budget every year, we would be left unable to respond to exceptional
> > > circumstances such as 9/11.
> >
> > Any such amendment would be extreemly deflationary.
>
> Flat-out ruinous, frankly, and therefore foolish. Balanced budgets are
> a good idea, but not everything that affects spending requirements is
> in the government's control, so they need the flexibility -- the
> borrowing power -- to deal with the things that are not.

Thus my suggestion that the budget should be balanced at least two
years out of seven.

If we pay down the debt, we get a free 300 billion.

[Grantland]

Andrew Chaplin > burbled:

>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >
>> > If we were to be bound by a Constitutional Amendment to balance the
>> > budget every year, we would be left unable to respond to exceptional
>> > circumstances such as 9/11.
>>
>> Any such amendment would be extreemly deflationary.
>
>Flat-out ruinous, frankly, and therefore foolish. Balanced budgets are
>a good idea, but not everything that affects spending requirements is
>in the government's control, so they need the flexibility -- the
>borrowing power -- to deal with the things that are not.
>--
Seven Trillion and rising, RETARD. $Seven $Trillion and rising fast.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Grantland