A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 24th 08, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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.

  #32  
Old April 24th 08, 04:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Peter Skelton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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
  #33  
Old April 24th 08, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
eyeball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"


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...
  #34  
Old April 24th 08, 08:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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...v=rss_politics
  #35  
Old April 24th 08, 09:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Ray O'Hara[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"


"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.


  #36  
Old April 24th 08, 09:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Ray O'Hara[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"


"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


  #37  
Old April 24th 08, 10:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
eyeball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

On Apr 24, 3:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" barked:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...g_moonbat3.jpg
  #38  
Old April 25th 08, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Dan[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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
  #39  
Old April 25th 08, 12:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Andrew Swallow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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
  #40  
Old April 25th 08, 02:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Dan[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default "Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Piloting 168 February 5th 08 06:32 PM
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Instrument Flight Rules 137 February 5th 08 06:32 PM
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale >pk Aviation Marketplace 0 October 16th 06 07:48 AM
2007 Defense Budget: Changes in Aircraft Programs. Mike Naval Aviation 0 January 6th 06 07:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.