Marine who helped save Jessica Lynch is gunned down in LA
Otis Willie
(EXCERPT) By Chris Ayres Murders in Los Angeles (2002): 653 US deaths
from hostile fire in Iraq since May 1: 104
THE soaring murder rate in Los Angeles has been brought into sharp
perspective by the shooting dead of a US Marine at a family barbecue
celebrating his safe return from the war in Iraq.
Sok Khak Ung, a 22-year-old lance corporal who had been awarded the
Purple Heart in Iraq after surviving an explosion, was shot once in
the head and twice in the body. He was killed together with his best
friend, Vouthy Tho, 21, a rapper who was about to release an album. Mr
Ung had suffered shrapnel injuries in Iraq.
Police speculated yesterday that Corporal Ung’s death could have been
a case of mistaken identity. Another explanation is that the killing
was part of a random gang initiation ceremony.
The double murder comes after the recent death in similar
circumstanc...
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 22 Oct 2003, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-863126,00.html
---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
Mark Test
news:o14epvs7ljnkpg6k4...@4ax.com...
> Marine who helped save Jessica Lynch is gunned down in LA
I wonder sometimes, why the media forgets that L.A., New York, Chicago,
Detroit,
and many other U.S. cities are actually more dangerous than Baghdad.
How many US citizens are killed in our country daily???? ALOT more
than our troops in harms way, that's a sad fact.
Mark
Thomas Schoene
news:bn9qq...@enews2.newsguy.com
> "Otis Willie" <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:o14epvs7ljnkpg6k4...@4ax.com...
> > Marine who helped save Jessica Lynch is gunned down in LA
>
> I wonder sometimes, why the media forgets that L.A., New York,
> Chicago, Detroit,
Because it isn't true. I ran the numbers in this group last week. For US
forces in Iraq, the fatality rate since the end of "major combat" is at
least three times as high the annual homicide rate in Washington DC (which
has the highest per-capita homicide rate among large US cities).
> How many US citizens are killed in our country daily???? ALOT more
> than our troops in harms way, that's a sad fact.
Not on a per capita basis.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
Kevin Brooks
Apparently not. There have been 104 deaths attributed to hostile
action since May 1 according to DefenseLink. Based on an in-country
strength of about 130,000 troops, that gives you an annual death rate
per 100K of about 160. OTOH, a website
(http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/11homici.html) indicates that for
the year 1996 (the last year this data was available on this site),
the homicide/legal intervention death rate in the US for age groups
was as follows: age 15-24: 18.1, age 25-34: 13.4, and age 35-44: 9.0.
Those age groups encompass the vast majority of US troops deployed in
Iraq. So the case can be made that serving in Iraq is between 9 and 18
times as likely to result in violent death than compared to being
stateside, depending upon the age group.
Alternately, compare the year 2000 homicide rate in cities of over 1
million population (14.7 per 100K according to the US DOJ) to that 160
per 100K for US troops in Iraq. Or, since you mention Washington, its
2002 rate of 45.8 per 100K (leading the nation, as usual) to that 160.
None of them begin to compare to the hostile action death rate in
Iraq. Bump the number of deployed personnel up to 200K (not sure that
the 130K included all services) and you *still* have a rate of about
100 deaths per 100K, which is over twice that of our most dangerous
city.
Brooks
Jim
> action since May 1 according to DefenseLink. Based on an in-country
> strength of about 130,000 troops, that gives you an annual death rate
> per 100K of about 160. OTOH, a website
> (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/11homici.html) indicates that for
Brooks
It is also about the same rate as non-combat accident deaths. Lets face it
is a dangerous job being a soldier at war.
Look at the comparison, Lefties whine and blubber, and brave young men and
women serve our nation, doing a nasty job and risk everything.
They are like other under-paid, under-respected souls (fireman, policeman)
do a dirty job and lay it on the line everyday for people who could never
find the guts to put it on the line themselves and don't appreciate it.
Disgusting frankly.
Jim
Mark Test
Mark
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e6ea40d.03102...@posting.google.com...
Spread Eagle
> Look at the comparison, Lefties whine and blubber, and brave young men and
> women serve our nation, doing a nasty job and risk everything.
> They are like other under-paid, under-respected souls (fireman, policeman)
> do a dirty job and lay it on the line everyday for people who could never
> find the guts to put it on the line themselves and don't appreciate it.
> Disgusting frankly.
Add to that that the lefties don't really care about these people when
they whine and blubber (although they sanctimoneously pretend that
they do), instead they are just props for them to use as part of their
hate Bush obsession.
Spread Eagle
Mark Borgerson
broo...@yahoo.com says...
To do apples to apples comparisons, you need to look at
deaths as a function of age in both DC and Iraq. I suspect
that deaths in both areas concentrate heavily in the 18-24
age groups. However, I suspect that that age group makes
up a much larger percentage of US troops in IRAQ than it
does of the general population in DC.
Mark Borgerson
Coridon Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T
news:7059619f.03102...@posting.google.com:
> Add to that that the lefties don't really care about these people when
> they whine and blubber (although they sanctimoneously pretend that
> they do), instead they are just props for them to use as part of their
> hate Bush obsession.
In objective terms the current resident of the White House is one of the
worst performing presidents of all time. He is the first president since
Hoover to preside over a decline in the number of jobs. He has adopted an
unprecedented fiscal policy which has the potential to literally bankrupt
the US within ten years. He has failed to address the epedemic of
corporate fraud which has undermined confidence in the markets.
His failures to manage the intelligence services enabled the worst act of
subnational terrorism in recorded history. He has failed to both identify
the failures which lead to Sept 11 and to ensure that they are not
repeated.
He has undermined American security by attacking the intelligence services
out of nothing more than a petty desire for revenge over their
unwillingness to fabricate data to support his policies. He has
undermined American security by progressively destroying the faith and
trust of American allies. He has undermined American security by
overstretching and underfunding the armed forces. He has insulted
veterans by cutting veterans' benefits in private while idolizing the
troops in public.
He has worked tirelessly to deligitimize and even criminalize dissent. He
has abandoned the rule of law as an absolute principle of American
society.
These are the facts. The American president is a disgrace who deserves to
be hated by all Americans who value the ideals of the republic.
--
Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh
Kevin Brooks
> red...@virtualhosts.net (Spread Eagle) wrote in
> news:7059619f.03102...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Add to that that the lefties don't really care about these people when
> > they whine and blubber (although they sanctimoneously pretend that
> > they do), instead they are just props for them to use as part of their
> > hate Bush obsession.
>
> In objective terms the current resident of the White House is one of the
> worst performing presidents of all time.
Why is this conclusion of yours not a bit surprising?
He is the first president since
> Hoover to preside over a decline in the number of jobs.
Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
huh?
He has adopted an
> unprecedented fiscal policy which has the potential to literally bankrupt
> the US within ten years.
So now YOU have become a deficit hawk?! Egads, and what of all those
social spending programs would you cut to help balance the budget?
He has failed to address the epedemic of
> corporate fraud which has undermined confidence in the markets.
Which "epidemic" was entrenched during the eight years of previous
administration (not that it was their fault either). The current
administration just happened to be in charge when the big fish have
been caught--but Bush is somehow guilty because of that?
>
> His failures to manage the intelligence services enabled the worst act of
> subnational terrorism in recorded history.
LOL! There is a new book out documenting the failures of the previous
adminstration in that regard; I'd provide you the title and author,
but it would be a waste of time as it would upset your preconceived
conclusions.
He has failed to both identify
> the failures which lead to Sept 11 and to ensure that they are not
> repeated.
No, we are addressing those failures; we seem to have been rather
effective so far, if you had not noticed. Unless you think we should
just close the border with canada (isn't that the route some of our
SEP 11 folks used....?)?
>
> He has undermined American security by attacking the intelligence services
> out of nothing more than a petty desire for revenge over their
> unwillingness to fabricate data to support his policies.
LOL! Which is it, are the intel folks incompetent, or are they always
accurate? In the space of three sentences you have indicated you want
it both ways...
He has
> undermined American security by progressively destroying the faith and
> trust of American allies.
No, he has just provided a method of winnowing the chaff from the
wheat.
He has undermined American security by
> overstretching and underfunding the armed forces.
ROFLOL! Are you talking about this admin or the previous one?
He has insulted
> veterans by cutting veterans' benefits in private while idolizing the
> troops in public.
>
> He has worked tirelessly to deligitimize and even criminalize dissent. He
> has abandoned the rule of law as an absolute principle of American
> society.
Where have we criminalized dissent?
>
> These are the facts. The American president is a disgrace who deserves to
> be hated by all Americans who value the ideals of the republic.
Now that you have finished spouting this latest garbage, can you
finally tell us whatever happened to that alleged pending invasion of
Syria that you *promised* us was immenent six months ago?
Brooks
ZZBunker
> news:7059619f.03102...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Add to that that the lefties don't really care about these people when
> > they whine and blubber (although they sanctimoneously pretend that
> > they do), instead they are just props for them to use as part of their
> > hate Bush obsession.
>
> In objective terms the current resident of the White House is one of the
> worst performing presidents of all time. He is the first president since
> Hoover to preside over a decline in the number of jobs. He has adopted an
> unprecedented fiscal policy which has the potential to literally bankrupt
> the US within ten years. He has failed to address the epedemic of
> corporate fraud which has undermined confidence in the markets.
He has failed to address corporate *anything*,
since as Congress morons need to be reminded
frequently, he's a *Yale* man.
> His failures to manage the intelligence services enabled the worst act of
> subnational terrorism in recorded history. He has failed to both identify
> the failures which lead to Sept 11 and to ensure that they are not
> repeated.
Well, that's the problem with President's and Congress though.
The only intelligence they're really capable of managing is
the Secret Service. Since history is not that different
from the U.S. Capitol, it goes around in circles.
The failures which lead to Sept 11 are simple to identify.
They give the UN all the good land to build on.
Which is why we have to keep giving Bush and Rumsfeld
construction advice, which is:
"We don't care where you oil people build, the smart
money builds in Wyoming.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
> administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
> huh?
>
As shown by the spectacular improvement over the past year?
Or is this the magic cycle tht last until just after the next election?
Vince
Kevin Brooks
As all things cyclic, it will rebound; the economic indicators today
are better than they were a year ago in many respects. The
unemployment rate for September of 2003 is the same (6.1%) as it was
for the year of 1994, when you-know-who was well esconced in the White
House.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=11se03.txt
Industrial production and consumer prices are generally mirroring what
is happening in the other major world economies:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=35se03.txt
Or are you going to blame Bush for Japanese, UK, etc., economic
developments as well?
Face it, Clinton was fortunate enough to serve during a period of
prosperity while the curve was generally "up", and indicators were
already heading southwards when he was still in office. Clinton did
not tame the deficit--he flip-flopped on that issue until his midterm
drubbing in the congressional elections. He promised us a new
healthcare program--where is it? He bayed about the Republicans
supposedly being out to get old folks and medicare--and then signed
the first real medicare reduction into law (his budget deal of August
97).
Was Clinton "reposnible" for the later economic downturn? No, of
course not. Was he responsible for the prosperity in the mid-90's?
Nope. Hold Bush to the same standards.
Brooks
ZZBunker
Well, no it's shown easily by the number of economic advisers
that Bush has hired and fired in his Homeland Security program.
Which is not a cyclical economic trend.
But, just evidence that somebody's
running for reelection with not only
American bankers on the payroll, but
also Swiss bankers on the payroll.
Which is why many Americans have started a boycott,
of not only Einstein, but all things Swiss.
> Vince
Kevin Brooks
No data was available for an age-break in DC, but you will note that I
did so for the nation at large. Based upon national figures, deaths in
that 18-24 age span roughly (using the 15-24 data) are a bit over two
times (2.4 to be a bit more accurate) that for "all ages" (18.9 versus
7.9 per 100K). That provides a rough guage to look at the DC
numbers--which would mean that the likely DC 18-24 figure would be a
bit over 109 per 100K, which is still one whale of a lot less than the
160 per 100K we are seeing in Iraq. Add to that the fact that the
18-24 band may be a bit narrow in the first place; I have noted a
number of mid-grade NCO's, O-3's, and even an O-5 listed the other day
as KIA, and they would somewhat outside that 18-24 band.
Brooks
>
> Mark Borgerson
Vince Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message news:<3F9D2DED...@umd.edu>...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
>>>administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
>>>huh?
>>>
>>
>>As shown by the spectacular improvement over the past year?
>>
>>Or is this the magic cycle tht last until just after the next election?
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> As all things cyclic, it will rebound; the economic indicators today
> are better than they were a year ago in many respects. The
> unemployment rate for September of 2003 is the same (6.1%) as it was
> for the year of 1994, when you-know-who was well esconced in the White
> House.
>
Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
Bush junior took over with a rate of 4.7 in 2001 and had managed to
shove it up to 6.1 afeter two years of fabulsous deficti spending. .
so is that the cycle? elect a democrat have a job
elect a republican lose a job?
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=11se03.txt
>
>
hey you can alsywa blamit on the sunspot cycle.
Vince
Chris Vail
Excerpts from:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/conda200310230900.asp
In the second quarter of this year, the economy
grew 3.3 percent, while business fixed investment
increased 8 percent. Real disposable personal income
is up 3.8 percent at an annual rate in 2003. Orders of
manufacturing goods have been increasing since
earlier this year.Shipments of durable goods increased this
summer after months of stagnation. Corporate profits
have rebounded. Industrial production is up 4.5 percent at
an annual rate in the last three months. Housing starts
are up 4.3 percent on an annualized basis.
Forecasters now predict 4 to 5 percent growth of real gross
domestic product in the last half of this year, and at least 4
percent throughout 2004. All of this good economic news has
sent the stock market soaring. In the year since the market
bottomed on October 9, 2002, the Dow and the tech-heavy
Nasdaq have increased 33 percent and 72 percent, respectively.
These gains have recovered $2.7 trillion in shareholder wealth,
according to the American Association of Shareholders. The
investor class is alive and kicking again.
On a personal note: one of my 401(k) plans grew
from $6000 to over $8000 in the quarter ending
9/15. Thats a 33% growth in the quarter, or over
120% annually. I don't expect it to continue, but
whaddadeal!
So, yes, the economy is rebounding. Some people
will be quite disappointed in this. But it looks as
though GWB's economic policies (some of which
I worry about) have had a beneficial effect. Although
the tech boom busted, the fundamental infrastructure
of the economy was (and remains) sound.
If Clinton gets the praise for the economy during
his Presidency, then too GWB gets praise for
its recovery. Lets face it: the Dem's haven't a
viable candidate, and AFAICT, GWB will
be around for a second term. He has proven
himself a competent President and administrator
of the highest office in the land--demonstrating that
rare and valuble personal commodity: leadership
underpinned by personal integrity.
At the very minimum: he hasn't (yet) diddled the
volunteer help or committed perjury, unlike the
previous occupant of that office. So the US and
the world as a whole is better off now.
Chris
Chris Vail
Most folks who know me, know
NOT to trust my math, especially
statistics. But consider for a moment
the death toll in France recently, some
12,000 souls who died of heat related
illnesses. The CIA world fact book
at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html
give the population of France at some
60,000,000 people. That means that
one out of 5000 (20 out of 100k) French
people died primarily as a result of poor
economic and social policy. So
France is roughly 40% more deadly
than a US city with a population larger
than 1 million--at least during a heat wave.
Chris
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message news:<3F9D2DED...@umd.edu>...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
> >>>administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
> >>>huh?
> >>>
> >>
> >>As shown by the spectacular improvement over the past year?
> >>
> >>Or is this the magic cycle tht last until just after the next election?
> >>
> >>Vince
> >
> >
> > As all things cyclic, it will rebound; the economic indicators today
> > are better than they were a year ago in many respects. The
> > unemployment rate for September of 2003 is the same (6.1%) as it was
> > for the year of 1994, when you-know-who was well esconced in the White
> > House.
> >
>
> Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
> he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
Bush stepped into office.
>
> Bush junior took over with a rate of 4.7 in 2001 and had managed to
> shove it up to 6.1 afeter two years of fabulsous deficti spending. .
Clinton had a 4.0% rate in 99 and saw it rise to 4.7% by the time
Bush entered office. Where is your scorn for that?
>
> so is that the cycle? elect a democrat have a job
> elect a republican lose a job?
Only to simpletons.
>
> > http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=11se03.txt
> >
> >
>
> hey you can alsywa blamit on the sunspot cycle.
Alsywa? And no, it is not due to sun spots--unless you blame Bush for
those phenomena as well?
Interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune (which IIRC was not a Bush
supporter) today, with the lead, "The coming week will see a flurry of
reports expected to show that the nation's economy is picking up."
Those reports being new and existing home sales, third quarter GDP,
etc. "They will show an economy that is reviving", in the words of a
quoted economist (not a USG type, either). Since you are the first to
sound the alarm that Bush was responsible for all of our economic woes
(including those that predated his term in office, apparently), I
guess we can count on you to also be the first to give him a strong
"atta boy" for starting an economic turn-around? Or is your tendancy
to slam Bush for all ills (while always defending the record of that
brilliant fellow who does not know what the definition of the word
"is" is...) a chronic condition?
Brooks
>
> Vince
Coridon Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T
@library1.airnews.net:
> In the second quarter of this year, the economy
> grew 3.3 percent, while business fixed investment
> increased 8 percent.
The contention was jobs, not growth or leading economic indicators. After
correcting for the increasing workforce, the US economy is still shedding
jobs at a considerable rate.
> Although the tech boom busted, the fundamental infrastructure
> of the economy was (and remains) sound.
Which explains why the US has started getting warning letters from the
IMF. Some minor thing about unsustainable debt levels....
> He has proven himself a competent President and administrator
> of the highest office in the land--demonstrating that
> rare and valuble personal commodity: leadership
> underpinned by personal integrity.
You might want to ask Valerie Plame what she thinks of this
administration's commitment to integrity. Or the Sept 11 next of kin. Or
any of the Army/USMC in Iraq who are supposedly doing just fine but are
only issued only three liters of water a day and are still eating MREs.
Quite frankly this administration lies more frequently than it tells the
truth.
There is no reason to doubt that the administration will be reelected.
There is also no reason to doubt that it will pilot the American ship of
state not just hard aground but headlong into a cliff. The ultimate
responsibility will lie in large part because people like you would rather
believe in warm and fuzzy propaganda than face the cold facts of reality.
Anyone who supports this administration is supporting the destruction of
the American republic. Is this what you really believe in?
Vince Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
>>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
>
>
> And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
> year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
> Bush stepped into office.
>
That is what happens when you get a republican congress
?
>
> Interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune (which IIRC was not a Bush
> supporter) today, with the lead, "The coming week will see a flurry of
> reports expected to show that the nation's economy is picking up."
> Those reports being new and existing home sales, third quarter GDP,
> etc. "They will show an economy that is reviving", in the words of a
> quoted economist (not a USG type, either). Since you are the first to
> sound the alarm that Bush was responsible for all of our economic woes
> (including those that predated his term in office, apparently), I
> guess we can count on you to also be the first to give him a strong
> "atta boy" for starting an economic turn-around? Or is your tendancy
> to slam Bush for all ills (while always defending the record of that
> brilliant fellow who does not know what the definition of the word
> "is" is...) a chronic condition?
To put it in SMn you want to give him credit for finally starting the
pumps after openign the sea cocks.
When he took office there were 6 million unemployed
now ther are 9 million.
yuour standards for performance are farily low
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:Kevin Brooks wrote:
:>
:>>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
:>>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
:>
:> And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
:> year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
:> Bush stepped into office.
:
:That is what happens when you get a republican congress
Uh, Vince? You might want to look at just what coincided with the
start of the 'Clinton economy'. Sorry to spoil your silly little
political diatribe with historical facts.
:To put it in SMn you want to give him credit for finally starting the
:pumps after openign the sea cocks.
:
:When he took office there were 6 million unemployed
:
:now ther are 9 million.
:
:yuour standards for performance are farily low
You totally missed the whole "9/11 thing", didn't you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :Kevin Brooks wrote:
> :>
> :>>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
> :>>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
> :>
> :> And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
> :> year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
> :> Bush stepped into office.
> :
> :That is what happens when you get a republican congress
>
> Uh, Vince? You might want to look at just what coincided with the
> start of the 'Clinton economy'. Sorry to spoil your silly little
> political diatribe with historical facts.
>
his claim was that there is a lag time between taking office and economic
aeffects. I agree.
you elect a republican congress and it takes a few years for them to ruin the
economy. Add a republicn president and the process speeds up The reason is
relatively simple. Whn you borrow public money and pass it to rich people as
tax custs, they get richer, but the economy as a whole declines. For more
information on this off topic discussion see
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/RecessionDemRep.htm
Vince
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> >>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
> >>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
> >
> >
> > And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
> > year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
> > Bush stepped into office.
> >
>
> That is what happens when you get a republican congress
Gee, how convenient--so all good economic developments are products of
democratic minds, and all bad ones are products of republicans? Not
only overly simplistic, but rather unrealistically biased IMO.
>
> ?
> >
> > Interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune (which IIRC was not a Bush
> > supporter) today, with the lead, "The coming week will see a flurry of
> > reports expected to show that the nation's economy is picking up."
> > Those reports being new and existing home sales, third quarter GDP,
> > etc. "They will show an economy that is reviving", in the words of a
> > quoted economist (not a USG type, either). Since you are the first to
> > sound the alarm that Bush was responsible for all of our economic woes
> > (including those that predated his term in office, apparently), I
> > guess we can count on you to also be the first to give him a strong
> > "atta boy" for starting an economic turn-around? Or is your tendancy
> > to slam Bush for all ills (while always defending the record of that
> > brilliant fellow who does not know what the definition of the word
> > "is" is...) a chronic condition?
>
> To put it in SMn you want to give him credit for finally starting the
> pumps after openign the sea cocks.
>
> When he took office there were 6 million unemployed
>
> now ther are 9 million.
>
> yuour standards for performance are farily low
Why can't you ever just answer the question you are asked without
running, dodging, and jumping about like a chicken with its head cut
off (though maybe said chicken minus its head would have a bit more
realistic grasp of reality than you are demonstrating here thus far)?
So Vkincian economic theory is as follows:
1. All positive economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
as, products of Democratic administrations then in office.
2. Said Democratic administrations are held to be not responsible for
any negative economic developments that occur during their period in
office, and such negative developments are de facto responsibilities
of the Republican party.
3. All negative economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
as, products of the Republican adminisitration then in office,
regardless of when such negative trend actually started.
4. Any positive economic development that occurs during a Republican
administrations time in office is obviously not attributable in any
way to that administration, and in actuality lacks any parentage, and
should be poo-pooed as being "too little, too late" to boot.
My, what a rather strange set of rules you have constructed there,
Vkince. One would hope that you taught your students to exhibit a bit
less bias in their analytical thinking, but knowing how liberal
academics do *love* their bully pulpits, I would not bet that was the
case.
Sorry, but the recent economic difficulties are evidence of the
typical cyclical nature that our economy has demonstrated for decades,
and impacted by events far beyond the purview of any Presidential
action (i.e., the collapse of the dot-com boom, random terrorist
actions that largely cripple air transportation for a period of months
(and before you embark on *that* area of discussion, recall that Mr.
Gore was instrumental in failing to tighten up airline security, maybe
because of those campaign donations he was getting from some of the
airline industry), etc. Clinton was *not* responsible for prosperity
in the mid-90's, nor was he responsible for the downturn towards the
end of his administration. Likewise, Bush is not responsible for the
continued decline we have witnessed, nor will he be responsible for
its recovery.
Brooks
>
>
> Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message news:<3F9E4EF9...@pressroom.com>...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > >>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
> > >>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
> > >
> > >
> > > And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
> > > year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
> > > Bush stepped into office.
> > >
> >
> > That is what happens when you get a republican congress
>
> Gee, how convenient--so all good economic developments are products of
> democratic minds, and all bad ones are products of republicans? Not
> only overly simplistic, but rather unrealistically biased IMO.
Its not a quesion of democratic minds. its a quesion of who gets the benefits of government
programs.
> >
> > ?Sorry, but the recent economic difficulties are evidence of the
> typical cyclical nature that our economy has demonstrated for decades,
> and impacted by events far beyond the purview of any Presidential
> action (i.e., the collapse of the dot-com boom, random terrorist
> actions that largely cripple air transportation for a period of months
> (and before you embark on *that* area of discussion, recall that Mr.
> Gore was instrumental in failing to tighten up airline security, maybe
> because of those campaign donations he was getting from some of the
> airline industry), etc. Clinton was *not* responsible for prosperity
> in the mid-90's, nor was he responsible for the downturn towards the
> end of his administration. Likewise, Bush is not responsible for the
> continued decline we have witnessed, nor will he be responsible for
> its recovery.
October 27, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
There's a Catch: Jobs
By BOB HERBERT
The president tells us the economy is accelerating, and the statistics seem to bear him out. But
don't hold your breath waiting for your standard of living to improve. Bush country is not a good
environment for working families. In the real world, which is the world of families trying to pay
their mortgages and get their children off to college, the economy remains troubled. While the
analysts and commentators of the comfortable class are assuring us that the president's tax cuts and
the billions being spent on Iraq have been good for the gross domestic product, the workaday folks
are locked in a less sanguine reality.
It's a reality in which:
• The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by three million in the past two years.
• The median household income has fallen for the past two years.
• The number of dual-income families, particularly those with children under 18, has declined
sharply.
The administration can spin its "recovery" any way it wants. But working families can't pay their
bills with data about the gross
domestic product. They need the income from steady employment. And when it comes to employment, the
Bush administration
has compiled the worst record since the Great Depression. The jobs picture is far more harrowing than
it is usually presented by the media. Despite modest wage increases for those who are working, the
unemployment rate is 6.1 percent, which represents almost nine million people. Millions more have
become discouraged and left the labor market. And there are millions of men and women who are
employed but working significantly fewer hours than they'd like.
Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, has taken a look at the hours
being worked by families,
rather than individuals. It's a calculation that gets to the heart of a family's standard of living.
The declines he found were "of a magnitude that's historically been commensurate with double-digit
unemployment rates," he said. It was not just that there were fewer family members working. The ones
who were employed were working fewer hours. According to government statistics, there are nearly 4.5
million people working part-time because they have been unable to find full-time work. In many cases,
as the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas noted in a recent report, the part-time worker
is "earning far less money than his or her background and experience warrant — i.e. a computer
programmer working at a coffee shop."
Economists expect some modest job creation to occur over the next several months. But there's a "just
in time for the election"
quality to the current economic surge, and even Republicans are worried that the momentum may not
last. The president has
played his tax-cut card. The spending on Iraq, most Americans fervently hope, will not go on
indefinitely. And President Bush's
own Treasury secretary is talking about an inevitable return to higher interest rates. Where's the
jobs creation miracle in this dismal mix? Meanwhile, these are some of the things working (and
jobless) Americans continue to face:
• Sharply increasing local taxes, including property taxes.
• Steep annual increases in health care costs.
• Soaring tuition costs at public and private universities.
Families are living very close to the edge economically. And this situation is compounded, made even
more precarious, by the
mountains of debt American families are carrying — mortgages, overloaded credit cards, college loans,
etc. The Bush administration has made absolutely no secret of the fact that it is committed to the
interests of the very wealthy. Leona
Helmsley is supposed to have said that "only the little people pay taxes." The Bush crowd has turned
that into a national fiat.
A cornerstone of post-Depression policy in this country has been a commitment to policies aimed at
raising the standard of living of the poor and the middle class. That's over. When it comes to jobs,
taxes, education and middle-class entitlement programs like Social Security, the message from the
Bush administration couldn't be clearer: You're on your own.
Jim
> In objective terms the current resident of the White House is one of the
> worst performing presidents of all time.
In objective terms he replaced on of the worst presidents of all time.
shall we take an
objective look for a second...
> He is the first president since Hoover to preside over a decline in the
number
> Jobs.
Bull, recessions are called that because the economy recedes (like a
receding hair line)
This means the economy is shrinking not expanding. It does so from time to
time.
The current recession started under President Clinton. He caused it, GW
inherited it.
It is also notable that when speaking of Corporate Fraud you wouldn't be
taking about folks like Martha Stewart and ImClone would we?
How are they GW's fault...
>He has adopted an unprecedented fiscal policy which has the potential to
literally bankrupt
> the US within ten years.
Tax relief has been used by democrat presidents to stimulate recovery too.
> His failures to manage the intelligence services enabled the worst act of
> subnational terrorism in recorded history.
No your wrong again Had the PUTZ Clinton did his JOB and stopped Osama on
any of the 6 chances he had
we wouldn't have had a sept 11th. Additionally, The Putz Clinton reduced
the budgets of the Intel services and
cut the military capability post cold war. Remember the "peace dividend"
Well I hope you liked the return on his investment.
>He has failed to both identify the failures which lead to Sept 11 and to
ensure that they are not repeated.
Clinton was the problem and he has been removed. The budget for the
military and Intel services has been increased...
Seems about right.
> He has undermined American security by progressively destroying the faith
and
> trust of American allies.
Excuse me allies are like friends, It is easy to be a friend in good
times.... Friends who turn their backs on friends in hard times are fair
weather friends.
Seems we had some Fair weather friends. Dad used to say with friends like
that you don't need enemies.
France isn't and never has been our ally, the French are whores spreading
for whom ever will pay.
Germany was an occupied country...
What is needed is revaluation on whom are friend are and then set our
foreign policy accordingly.
I.E. European basing should be shifted from Germany to Poland and Spain.
French port call should be moved to Italy.
etc etc.
> He has undermined American security by overstretching and underfunding
the armed forces.
Excuse me it was the previous PUTZ whom downsized "right sized" the
military from a win 2 conflicts mentality to win 1 hold 1.
in hind sight might be nice right now to be able to win 2 hey... So much for
the "Peace dividend"
> He has insulted veterans by cutting veterans' benefits in private while
idolizing the
> troops in public.
I am a vet (disabled)... I know the largest insult to any Vet was when
the Draft dodging, dope smoking, anti-war protesting , communist
sympathizing PIG
named "CLINTON" became president.
> These are the facts. The American president is a disgrace who deserves to
> be hated by all Americans who value the ideals of the republic.
The only president of late who is a disgrace is the one who makes messes and
deigns making it (like the blue dress, again).
The Clinton legacy is how he left this country naked (like an intern) in the
face of terrorists. How he failed to ACT against them when opportunity
presented itself while having no problems launching tomahawks when
intern(al) problems are involved.
Jim
Jim
> No data was available for an age-break in DC, but you will note that I
> did so for the nation at large. Based upon national figures, deaths in
> that 18-24 age span roughly (using the 15-24 data) are a bit over two
> times (2.4 to be a bit more accurate) that for "all ages" (18.9 versus
> 7.9 per 100K). That provides a rough guage to look at the DC
> numbers--which would mean that the likely DC 18-24 figure would be a
> bit over 109 per 100K, which is still one whale of a lot less than the
> 160 per 100K we are seeing in Iraq. Add to that the fact that the
> 18-24 band may be a bit narrow in the first place; I have noted a
> number of mid-grade NCO's, O-3's, and even an O-5 listed the other day
> as KIA, and they would somewhat outside that 18-24 band.
>
> Brooks
But has DC been deemed a war Zone?
Last I saw, Iraq was... maybe DC should be...
Jim
Jim
And climbing but it had leveled prior to 9/11
and speaking of 9/11 would that tragety even happened had clinton did his
job and taken Osama out when he had the chance.
Jim
Jim
> The contention was jobs, not growth or leading economic indicators. After
> correcting for the increasing workforce, the US economy is still shedding
> jobs at a considerable rate.
Econ 101... Jobs are a trailing indicator.
> Which explains why the US has started getting warning letters from the
> IMF. Some minor thing about unsustainable debt levels....
What percent of the IMF does the US underwrite?
> You might want to ask Valerie Plame what she thinks of this
> administration's commitment to integrity. Or the Sept 11 next of kin. Or
> any of the Army/USMC in Iraq who are supposedly doing just fine but are
> only issued only three liters of water a day and are still eating MREs.
> Quite frankly this administration lies more frequently than it tells the
> truth.
Soilders and sailors bitch that is a fact a bitching sailor is a happy
one...
No one promased service man a rose garden and MRE like grams C rations are
what they they eat in the field.
Oh Warships arn't designed like cruse ships either.
Concerning lies your thinking of the previous occupent of the white house.
> There is no reason to doubt that the administration will be reelected.
> There is also no reason to doubt that it will pilot the American ship of
> state not just hard aground but headlong into a cliff. The ultimate
> responsibility will lie in large part because people like you would rather
> believe in warm and fuzzy propaganda than face the cold facts of reality.
who supports this administration is supporting the destruction of
> the American republic. Is this what you really believe in?
Again you confusing Bill with GW...
Jim
Jim
>
> To put it in SMn you want to give him credit for finally starting the
> pumps after openign the sea cocks.
In SMN terms from an old salt.....
We were leaking pre 9-11 that was due to an inherated condition (poor
Maintenance) from the previous command but the flooding was controlled...
The real damage was 9-11 and that wasn't from open sea cocks it was from
battle damage. Of course had the previous commander not been incompetent
and avoided removing the threat well the ship wouldn't have been attacked at
all!!!!!
The fact is the current commander managed to stop the flooding, and saved
the ship, he also placed the fleet on the offensive taking the fight to
the emeny instead of allowing them to bring the fight to us...
Jim
Jim
> you elect a republican congress and it takes a few years for them to ruin
the
> economy. Add a republicn president and the process speeds up The reason
is
> relatively simple. Whn you borrow public money and pass it to rich people
as
> tax custs, they get richer, but the economy as a whole declines. For
more
> information on this off topic discussion see
Vince explain California
Jim
> So Vkincian economic theory is as follows:
>
> 1. All positive economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
> as, products of Democratic administrations then in office.
Explain california
> 2. Said Democratic administrations are held to be not responsible for
> any negative economic developments that occur during their period in
> office, and such negative developments are de facto responsibilities
> of the Republican party.
Explain california
> 3. All negative economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
> as, products of the Republican adminisitration then in office,
> regardless of when such negative trend actually started.
Explain california
> 4. Any positive economic development that occurs during a Republican
> administrations time in office is obviously not attributable in any
> way to that administration, and in actuality lacks any parentage, and
> should be poo-pooed as being "too little, too late" to boot.
Explain california
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim wrote:
> > > Bush junior took over with a rate of 4.7
>
> And climbing but it had leveled prior to 9/11
on what planet ?
Katharine G. Abraham
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics
before the
Joint Economic Committee
UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Friday, September 7, 2001
[note the date]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the August
labor market data we released this morning.
The labor market continued to weaken in August. The jobless total
swelled by more than half a million over the
month, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.9 percent, its highest level in
nearly 4 years. Nonfarm payroll employment
fell by 113,000 in August, bringing net job losses since March to 323,000.
Manufacturers continued to slash jobs in
August, and there was also a large employment decline in transportation and
public utilities. Most other major
industries showed little or no change in employment over the month.
Manufacturing employment fell by 141,000 in August. Since July 2000, the
industry has lost slightly more than 1
million jobs. The unemployment rate for manufacturing workers rose in August
to 5.7 percent, up from 3.5 percent a
year earlier. Employment reductions occurred throughout manufacturing in
August, with almost every component industry losing jobs. Industrial
machinery (-25,000) and electrical equipment (-19,000), however, continued to
account for a
disproportionate share of the overall decline in manufacturing employment.
Two other manufacturing industries
with particularly large employment declines in August were apparel (-20,000)
and furniture (-10,000).
Manufacturing's woes continued to affect transportation employment, which
fell substantially in August, most notably
in trucking and warehousing (-8,000). Construction employment was little
changed over the
month. This industry, which had added 221,000 jobs in 2000 and continued to
expand into the first part of this year, has
shown no net job growth since March.
Services employment rose by 72,000 in August. Even with that gain, however,
employment growth in the industry has
averaged only 10,000 per month over the past 5 months, compared with 93,000
per month in 2000 and 131,000 per month
in 1999. In August, the overall gain reflected continued strength in health
services (32,000). There was also an
unusually large gain in social services employment (33,000); combined with a
weak July, this increase put the industry
back on its trend growth path. Computer services employment declined by
5,000 in August; this was the first monthly
decline since February 1988, although growth in the industry had slowed in
recent months. Employment growth also has
slowed in engineering and management services, another industry that had
been expanding rapidly. Help supply
employment was about unchanged in August, following sharp declines totaling
more than 400,000 since last September.
Turning now to data from our survey of households, the number of unemployed
and the unemployment rate rose sharply
in August, and employment fell by nearly 1 million. Both the increase in the
number of unemployed persons and the decrease
in employment occurred disproportionately among young workers (those aged 16
to 24). Overall, the unemployment rate jumped four-tenths of a percentage
point over the month to 4.9 percent, after having remained in the 4.4- to
4.5-percent
range since April. While still low by historical standards, the August rate
is the highest posted since September 1997.
Both the number of newly-unemployed persons (those jobless less than 5 weeks)
and the number of long-term unemployed
(those jobless 15 weeks and longer) rose substantially in August. Long-term
unemployment totaled 1.8 million, up from
1.3 million at the end of last year. The number of discouraged
workers--those who have stopped seeking work
because of discouragement over their job prospects--was 335,000 in August,
somewhat higher than a year earlier.
In summary, the unemployment rate rose in August to 4.9 percent, its highest
level in nearly 4 years. Job losses
continued to mount in manufacturing, and the employment situation in most
other industries remained weak.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim wrote:
A farily nasty conspriacy to raise elcetric rates
or do you mena the current fires?
Vince
Jim
> > Gee, how convenient--so all good economic developments are products of
> > democratic minds, and all bad ones are products of republicans? Not
> > only overly simplistic, but rather unrealistically biased IMO.
>
> Its not a quesion of democratic minds. its a quesion of who gets the
benefits of government
> programs.
Well every rich man I know works his behind off
Every welfare mom I have known sits on said behind waiting for a hand out.
Snip the leftist rant...
Jim
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim wrote:
> If i may assist....
>
> > So Vkincian economic theory is as follows:
> >
> > 1. All positive economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
> > as, products of Democratic administrations then in office.
>
> Explain california
we have anntioanl ecomomy. States don set national econoomic policy
Vince
Chris Vail
"Coridon Henshaw @ (T<H+ESE) sympatico.ca)>" <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE> wrote in
message news:Xns9421EB486...@198.80.55.250...
> "Chris Vail" <a0008573@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> wrote in news:bnkpp9$5q9
> @library1.airnews.net:
>
> > In the second quarter of this year, the economy
> > grew 3.3 percent, while business fixed investment
> > increased 8 percent.
>
> The contention was jobs, not growth or leading economic indicators. After
> correcting for the increasing workforce, the US economy is still shedding
> jobs at a considerable rate.
Jobs are up in October by 0.8%. New claims
for unemployment benefits are below the
magical number of 400,000.
>
> > Although the tech boom busted, the fundamental infrastructure
> > of the economy was (and remains) sound.
>
> Which explains why the US has started getting warning letters from the
> IMF. Some minor thing about unsustainable debt levels....
I agree that the USG has too much debt.
GWB is trying to emulate LBJ: fight a war
whilest instituting huge entitlement spending.
At the same time, he has managed to
subvert the Dem campaign platform for
himself. This shows that he is a SHREWD
politician, which is not necessarily a compliment
coming from me.
However I'm personally delighted at the
short term growth. So GWB gets a 'B' from
me overall. However, the nearest Dem
competition has so far failed in every
regard: 'F' or less. They've failed so
badly they would be completely irrelevant
if the media weren't giving them all that
free publicity.
> > He has proven himself a competent President and administrator
> > of the highest office in the land--demonstrating that
> > rare and valuble personal commodity: leadership
> > underpinned by personal integrity.
>
> You might want to ask Valerie Plame what she thinks of this
> administration's commitment to integrity. Or the Sept 11 next of kin. Or
> any of the Army/USMC in Iraq who are supposedly doing just fine but are
> only issued only three liters of water a day and are still eating MREs.
> Quite frankly this administration lies more frequently than it tells the
> truth.
I note that EPW's are getting showers and
plenty of water, while the grunts guarding
them aren't. The Geneva accords don't
apply to your own troops. This has little
to do with Presidential integrity and a lot
more to do with infrastructural issues. What
general would willingly deprive his/her combat
troops of water?
MRE's are used on peacetime manuevers
almost exclusively (exception is made when
they can get Dominoes to deliver 60 large
pepperoni pizzas to a bivouac at Ft. Hood).
And they're undoubtedly a lot more nutritious
than the average Iraqi diet these days.
> There is no reason to doubt that the administration will be reelected.
> There is also no reason to doubt that it will pilot the American ship of
> state not just hard aground but headlong into a cliff.
We (barely) survived Klinton, and the Republic
is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch. Why does
this bother you? We've won, we're winning, and
by all estimates, we'll continue to do so.
> The ultimate
> responsibility will lie in large part because people like you would rather
> believe in warm and fuzzy propaganda than face the cold facts of reality.
The cold, hard facts of reality are reflected in
the statement of my retirement account that I
posted previously.
> Anyone who supports this administration is supporting the destruction of
> the American republic. Is this what you really believe in?
Things are looking pretty good here. I keep
waiting for all the doomsayers' predictions to
come true. ISTR how many in this group
predicted 10's of thousands of US casualties
in Opeation Iraqi Freedom. Yet we lose more young
people to drunk drivers on a holiday weekend than
we've lost IN TOTAL to combat ops in Iraq.
While I would that none should die untimely, and
that EVERY American death is to be mourned,
Iraqi Freedom has been (and will remain, methinks)
a resounding success.
Get over it.
Chris
Jim
place! Congress and Administration goverment all controled by liberials!
But saddly they have lumped so much Social program BS on bussiness they
simply decided to vote with their feet and take the jobs elsewere...
Intresting.
I guess it proves that when you have a democrat legislator and governor
leads to total ecomonic collapse.
Paul J. Adam
<a0008573@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> writes
>MRE's are used on peacetime manuevers
>almost exclusively
Interesting. UK forces use 'compo' (ration packs - several types in use,
for individual, fireteam and section use) only when alternatives are not
available (like, much of wartime). Ratpacks are nutritious and
sustaining, but also rapidly pall in their attraction (especially in a
hot climate). Where possible, field feeding is used, with a field
kitchen set up and food brought up in hayboxes or Norwegians to troops
who can't get there; better yet, a proper feeding arrangement with fresh
food available, though that's normally only possible after the fighting
settles down.
Ratpacks were usually used for about half the meals on exercises to
ensure familiarity with them and to ease logistics, but there was no
dogmatic "you will live on compo in the field" order. In fact quite the
opposite: it was considered a test of skill for the CSS units to get
palatable hot food up to units busy with other roles, just as it was for
platoon commanders to know where they were and be able to get to the DRV
(Dinner Rendezvous) for some hot scoff.
I've heard it alleged that US forces in Iraq were still stuck on MREs
for food, but had dismissed that as propaganda. You're saying it's true
and the US _still_ has no better field feeding organisation than MREs?
That's a staggering indictment, if true.
>While I would that none should die untimely, and
>that EVERY American death is to be mourned,
>Iraqi Freedom has been (and will remain, methinks)
>a resounding success.
It's been a solid military success to date, but then I never claimed it
would be otherwise.
The trouble is, it's not sufficient to win every major battle and then
go home. The final success is measured by the stable end state: pulling
out and leaving a fragile nation-state to be rapidly dismembered by
internal or external attack is not "victory".
Unfortunately, it's the loser who decides when they've lost...
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Paul J. Adam
>Well every rich man I know works his behind off
The rich people I've met lived off trust funds and did sweet Fanny Adams
to earn a living: they'd inherited money and saw no reason to do more
than live off the interest.
May not be a representative sample - I don't move in the right circles.
I just go by what I've seen.
>Every welfare mom I have known sits on said behind waiting for a hand out.
Some sit waiting for welfare, or actively go looking for benefits they
could be claiming. Others work multiple jobs to get their children more
of what they need. Again, I can't claim to have met a representative
sample.
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message news:<3F9E4EF9...@pressroom.com>...
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
> > > >>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
> > > > year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
> > > > Bush stepped into office.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is what happens when you get a republican congress
> >
> > Gee, how convenient--so all good economic developments are products of
> > democratic minds, and all bad ones are products of republicans? Not
> > only overly simplistic, but rather unrealistically biased IMO.
>
> Its not a quesion of democratic minds. its a quesion of who gets the benefits of government
> programs.
Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
credit Bush with those same gains?
>
> > >
> > > ?Sorry, but the recent economic difficulties are evidence of the
> > typical cyclical nature that our economy has demonstrated for decades,
> > and impacted by events far beyond the purview of any Presidential
> > action (i.e., the collapse of the dot-com boom, random terrorist
> > actions that largely cripple air transportation for a period of months
> > (and before you embark on *that* area of discussion, recall that Mr.
> > Gore was instrumental in failing to tighten up airline security, maybe
> > because of those campaign donations he was getting from some of the
> > airline industry), etc. Clinton was *not* responsible for prosperity
> > in the mid-90's, nor was he responsible for the downturn towards the
> > end of his administration. Likewise, Bush is not responsible for the
> > continued decline we have witnessed, nor will he be responsible for
> > its recovery.
>
> October 27, 2003
>
> OP-ED COLUMNIST
>
> There's a Catch: Jobs
>
> By BOB HERBERT
Ta-da! Unacknowledged snippage of the stuff you can't bear to
confront? Avoiding (again) the question posed to you? Who really
*cares* about your *OP-ED*?
Get back to me when you can address the question that was posed to you
(again).
Brooks
<snip verbose OP-ED article>
Chris Vail
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rNsUlHgxXun$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <bnmjl2$l...@library1.airnews.net>, Chris Vail
> <a0008573@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> writes
> >MRE's are used on peacetime manuevers
> >almost exclusively
>
> Interesting. UK forces use 'compo' (ration packs - several types in use,
> for individual, fireteam and section use) only when alternatives are not
> available (like, much of wartime). Ratpacks are nutritious and
> sustaining, but also rapidly pall in their attraction (especially in a
> hot climate). Where possible, field feeding is used, with a field
> kitchen set up and food brought up in hayboxes or Norwegians to troops
> who can't get there; better yet, a proper feeding arrangement with fresh
> food available, though that's normally only possible after the fighting
> settles down.
>
>
> Ratpacks were usually used for about half the meals on exercises to
> ensure familiarity with them and to ease logistics, but there was no
> dogmatic "you will live on compo in the field" order. In fact quite the
> opposite: it was considered a test of skill for the CSS units to get
> palatable hot food up to units busy with other roles, just as it was for
> platoon commanders to know where they were and be able to get to the DRV
> (Dinner Rendezvous) for some hot scoff.
I've heard both tales out of Ft. Hood:
the cooks who have to set up field kitchens
and eating another round of MRE's. A lot
of it depends on the exercise. Some US
reservations are HUGE, and it is easy to
be more than a day's drive away from
the nearest Mess Hall. Its equally inconvenient
to move the field kitchens. Quite frankly,
ordering out for pizza for a couple of hundred
hungry soldiers is NOT uncommon. I know
of one situation where both the MRE's AND
the field kitchens were too far away across a
flooded river, so the Captain ordered 50 buckets
of fried chicken to be delivered to the nearest gate
from a Killeen restaurant. Cell phones are good
for that kind of thing. This, of course, is one of
those tales told by soldiers over beer, so take
that for what its worth.....
> I've heard it alleged that US forces in Iraq were still stuck on MREs
> for food, but had dismissed that as propaganda. You're saying it's true
> and the US _still_ has no better field feeding organisation than MREs?
> That's a staggering indictment, if true.
It'll all depend of the local infrastructure, methinks.
There are a lot of detached units operating
independantly. I suspect that hot meals are
few and far between for these. OTOH,
the Air Force probably has the catering
perfected by now. The much-maligned
Haliburton is providing a lot of meals and
clean uniforms in some areas, but some
grunts have gone weeks without a change
of clothes. This from our own JMA.
I seriously doubt that any front-line troops
get "3 hots and a cot" every day. But lets
not forget the incredible scrounging skills of the
typical US Sergeant.
I read somewhere that TRATS (Tray
Rations) were much improved over GWI.
These are used in small-to-medium sized
congregations--but such are open invitation
to the nearest yahoo with an RPG and a
poor attitude. So dining halls or even field
kitchens have to be in places where security
is fairly tight.
> >While I would that none should die untimely, and
> >that EVERY American death is to be mourned,
> >Iraqi Freedom has been (and will remain, methinks)
> >a resounding success.
>
> It's been a solid military success to date, but then I never claimed it
> would be otherwise.
To hear the shrill voices from the
'merkin left, you'd think we'd already
lost.
> The trouble is, it's not sufficient to win every major battle and then
> go home. The final success is measured by the stable end state: pulling
> out and leaving a fragile nation-state to be rapidly dismembered by
> internal or external attack is not "victory".
That is a political issue, not a military one.
We lost VN politically long before the
first drawdown of troops there. Lets hope
the American people continue to support
our efforts there. Congress (the opposite
of progress) sooner or later has to pay
attention to the voters.
> Unfortunately, it's the loser who decides when they've lost...
Either that, or they die and everything
else is moot.
Chris
Alan Minyard
>
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>>
>> Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
>> administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
>> huh?
>>
>
>As shown by the spectacular improvement over the past year?
>
>Or is this the magic cycle tht last until just after the next election?
>
>Vince
>
>
>
Vince
Go talk to one of the MBA types. Cyclical economics have been with us
for a long time, and the cycles are not uniform. A sitting President has
very little impact on the economy, it is self driven.
Al Minyard
Chris Vail
> In message <3f9e...@news.qgraph.com>, Jim <Jim....@qti.com> writes
> >Well every rich man I know works his behind off
>
> The rich people I've met lived off trust funds and did sweet Fanny Adams
> to earn a living: they'd inherited money and saw no reason to do more
> than live off the interest.
>
> May not be a representative sample - I don't move in the right circles.
> I just go by what I've seen.
>
> >Every welfare mom I have known sits on said behind waiting for a hand
out.
>
> Some sit waiting for welfare, or actively go looking for benefits they
> could be claiming. Others work multiple jobs to get their children more
> of what they need. Again, I can't claim to have met a representative
> sample.
Most people we would call 'impoverished'
around here are actually 'the working poor'.
There are jobs to be had, but they don't pay
much. We have a porous 800 mile border
with a 3rd world country, and so the supply
of labor has always been (will always be)
greater than the actual number of jobs.
I've personally not seen any real poverty
(and I've seen A LOT, first hand) that
also didn't involve some form of substance
abuse by the adults. As a rule: if a person
is willing to work (McJobs are an example)
show up on time, in uniform, with a good
attitude, and work hard all day until the shift
ends, they can get and keep a job-albeit a
poorly paying one. This varys inversely
with proximity to the Rio Grande. Down
there, there are no jobs of any kind that pay
anything. But elsewhere in Texas, jobs can
be had--though they're probably not good
jobs.
Most really wealthy people of my acquaint
(more than a few) also worked for a living--
generally in Real Estate or in Sales. I don't
know any that inherited the money, and only
two that married it. The rest used some
combination of: hard work, experience,
education, family/friend connections,
entrepeneurship, and lets not forget LUCK.
Usually, "the poor" blame their lack of this
last thing rather than their unwillingness to
undertake the others for their lack of
financial success.
Chris
Brian Allardice
Your circle must approximate a point....
Cheers,
dba
Brian Allardice
>
>If i may assist....
>
>> So Vkincian economic theory is as follows:
>>
>> 1. All positive economic developments are due to, and can be heralded
>> as, products of Democratic administrations then in office.
>
>Explain california
Don't be ridiculous. Nobody on this planet can explain California.
Cheers,
dba
Vince Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message news:<3F9EBDC2...@umd.edu>...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message news:<3F9E4EF9...@pressroom.com>...
>>>
>>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it was 6.9 when clinton took over from bush senior in 93and
>>>>>>he had it down to 6.1 by 94 and 5.7 after two years
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And it again jumped by seven-tenths of a percent during Clinton's last
>>>>>year in office; the blush was already off the economic rose before
>>>>>Bush stepped into office.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is what happens when you get a republican congress
>>>
>>>Gee, how convenient--so all good economic developments are products of
>>>democratic minds, and all bad ones are products of republicans? Not
>>>only overly simplistic, but rather unrealistically biased IMO.
>>
>>Its not a quesion of democratic minds. its a quesion of who gets the benefits of government
>>programs.
>
>
> Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
> economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
> are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
> indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
> as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
> credit Bush with those same gains?
>
When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
Clinton
Ill credit bush
until then he is a loser
vince
Vince Brannigan
you can crap it up. Big tax cuts paid for by big deficit spending,
o yea you can crap it up
vince
Kevin Brooks
The usual cop out; do you always throw that many conditionals into the
mix? Which criteria will you use, as you stated two--when the economy
recovers to the level that existed when Clinton left office, or when
it it reaches that ambiguous "prosperity" that existed (sometime?)
during the Clinton administration? The indicators were pointing
downhill when Clinton left office; if they turn around, you are not
willing to credit Bush with the same level of impact that you so
besottedly grace Clinton with? That is rather unfair.
The economy is largely cyclical, Vkince; get it through your head. The
economy is too distributed/widespread to be severely impacted by the
administration in power *either* way; get that through your head as
well.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
"In his [Clinton's] first year, he was saying deficit reduction was
indespensable to economic growth, but his 1993 budget still forecast
long-term deficits, In 1994, when Republicans took over Congress and
proposed eliminating the deficit, Clinton suddenly proclaimed that
deficit reduction was a threat to the nation's children and
elderly....He could either defend or trash deficit reduction with
equal passion, depending on whether it suited his interests at the
time." (Lowry, Rich "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years",
Regnery, 2003, pp. 21-22)
""The President lost his nerve a bit on deficit reduction for a
while," says Alice Rivlin, former deputy director of the Office of
Management and Budget, "and that was a very discouraging period for
those of us who thought it was really important"...What followed was a
mind-bending series of flip-flops about whether he supported balancing
the budget by a certain date, and if so, by which date. At one point,
deputy chief of staff Erskine Bowles had to ask Clinton, "Are you for
a balanced budget or not?" (Lowry, p. 44)
So if Clinton was wishy-washy on the deficit issue and not really
responsible for deficit reduction in the 90's, who was? Dick Morris
told Clinton he had to become a deficit hawk *because* he, "...had to
for balancing the budget before he could effectively attack the
Republicans." (Lowry, p. 44)
So it appears that nasty Republican congress, that Vkince blames for
the later downturn in the economy duing the latter Clinonian period,
was actually responsible, with its "Contract for America", for the
deficit reduction Vkince credits with making the economy strong (but
he can't bring himself to credit *anything* Republican). Morris
convinced him that he had to commit to deficit reduction after the 94
legislative election landslide, or risk being lumped into the "old
liberalism" that had been the root cause for that mid-term debacle.
Note that both Rivlin and Bowles were dyed-in-the-wool Clintonians,
and Morris was one of his most trusted advisors of long standing.
>
> o yea you can crap it up
Well, if Clinton (mis)managed the issue of deficit reduction as we see
from the above, without "crapping it up", then one has to wonder about
the veracity of your claim here.
Even after Clinto belatedly joined the deficit reduction bandwagon, he
could take little credit for making it happen. Perversely, deficit
reduction was more a product of that cyclical economic boom than it
was due to any action on Clinton's part (despite his repeated attempts
to rewrite history since then). Clinton entered office in 93; it would
be two years before he decided that deficit reduction was the course
to follow, and then only because he had to try to steal some of the
"Contract for America's" thunder.
Brooks
>
> vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
> > > economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
> > > are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
> > > indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
> > > as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
> > > credit Bush with those same gains?
> > >
> >
> > When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
> > over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
> > Clinton
> > Ill credit bush
> >
> > until then he is a loser
> >
> > vince
>
> The usual cop out; do you always throw that many conditionals into the
> mix? Which criteria will you use, as you stated two--when the economy
> recovers to the level that existed when Clinton left office,
a fairly low standard
> or when
> it it reaches that ambiguous "prosperity" that existed (sometime?)
> during the Clinton administration? The indicators were pointing
> downhill when Clinton left office; if they turn around, you are not
> willing to credit Bush with the same level of impact that you so
> besottedly grace Clinton with? That is rather unfair.
>
> The economy is largely cyclical, Vkince; get it through your head. The
> economy is too distributed/widespread to be severely impacted by the
> administration in power *either* way; get that through your head as
> well.
The Economy is cyclcal
the pain we inflict on the poor in cynical
Since Bush took over there have been massive tax cuts for his wealth campaign contributors and massive
service cuts
for lower income americans. ther is a massive budget deficit for our children to pay but There are 3
million fewer employed Amercans than when he took office.
Here are the unemployment numbers for every party change in the white house since the vietnam war
2 years before two years after
1967 3.8 D
1968 3.6 D
1969 3.5 R
1970 4.9 R
Elect a Republican, (nixon) unemployment goes up
1975 8.5 R
1976 7.7 R
1977 7.1 D
1978 6.1 D
Elect a democart (carter) unemployment goes down
1979 5.8 D
1980 7.1 D
1981 7.6 R
1982 9.7 R
Elect a republican (Reagan) unemployment goes up
1991 6.8 R
1992 7.5 R
1993 6.9 D
1994 6.1 D
Elect a democrat (Clinton) unemployment goes down
1999 4.2 D
2000 4.0 D
2001 4.7 R
2002 5.8 R
Elect a republican (Bush) unemployment goes up
Some cycle
Vince
Jim
--
"The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations
are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they
are no longer strong."
"Brian Allardice" <d...@uniserve.extraneous.com> wrote in message
news:5UEnb.209746$pl3.46061@pd7tw3no...
Thank you...
Jim
>
> When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
> over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
> Clinton
> Ill credit bush
>
> until then he is a loser
>
> vince
>
Conditional Acceptance if you also stipulate Clinton a looser until those
3000 souls are resurrected...
Care to estimate the damage to the economy caused by 9-11 that was the
result of a Man more interested in internal
problems (interns and blue dresses) then external threats I.E. Osama...
The fact remains Clinton had 6 opportunities to take Osama down and didn't
pull the string.
Of course now he is on Larry King stating to anyone who will listen how
Osama was the biggest threat.
So he claims he knew Osama was a threat and still did nothing that amounts
is Gross negligence...
The cost of 9-11 in lives and money were enormous. That is his legacy...
Jim
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim wrote:
> >
> > When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
> > over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
> > Clinton
> > Ill credit bush
> >
> > until then he is a loser
> >
> > vince
> >
>
> Conditional Acceptance if you also stipulate Clinton a looser until those
> 3000 souls are resurrected...
>
political use of murder victims,
about par for your course.
> Care to estimate the damage to the economy caused by 9-11 that was the
> result of a Man more interested in internal
> problems (interns and blue dresses) then external threats I.E. Osama...
Care to point out who predicted the attack and presented the prediciton to
Clinton?
political use of 9/11 is really desperate.
> The fact remains Clinton had 6 opportunities to take Osama down and didn't
> pull the string.
OFCS
wher is the doucment that says
don't kill OBL
signed Bill clinton
and bvack it with proof that killing OBL wousl have prevented 9/11
this is why politicluse of 9/11 is disgraceful
> Of course now he is on Larry King stating to anyone who will listen how
> Osama was the biggest threat.
> So he claims he knew Osama was a threat and still did nothing that amounts
> is Gross negligence...
>
> The cost of 9-11 in lives and money were enormous. That is his legacy...
This is sick
vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim wrote:
This is simply crap at least according to the federal reserve board
researchers.
Since the latest recession began in 2001, California's unemployment rate has
increased by about the same amount as the national unemployment rate. Within
the state, the increase in unemployment has been largest in the San
Francisco Bay Area, where the plunge in demand for tech products has hit
hard; unemployment has risen by about 4 percentage points, twice
that observed in the state or the nation. Within the Bay Area, the impact
has been most severe in the San Jose metro area, where unemployment hovered
around 8% (not seasonally adjusted) at the end of 2002—a startling increase
from the low of 1.3% recorded at the end of 2000. By contrast, in Southern
California, which has a relatively diversified economy, the unemployment
rate has increased only by a little over 1 percentage point. Although
unemployment rates in the two regions have converged (Figure 1), the burden
of rising unemployment has been shared unevenly within the state.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2003/el2003-05.html
The collapse in he economy that occurred when Bush was elected (i said when
not by) caused an economic collapse in northern California. Like most
states California cannot run a deficit and funding the social effects of a
recession caused a governmental budget problem due to lack of federal
assistance.
one of the argument against davis was that Bush would give money to
california if they elected a republican
we shall see
vince
Vince .
Alan Minyard
Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
There is also the fact that fighting terrorism is rather expensive,
would you prefer it if we cut welfare to finance it? The "big tax
cuts" are neither big nor the cause of the budget shortfall.
Al Minyard
Jack Love
<aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:47:22 GMT, Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:38:37 -0500, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ho-hummm...a cyclical economic trend that began while the previous
>>>>>administration was still in office must be beyond your understanding,
>>>>>huh?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As shown by the spectacular improvement over the past year?
>>>>
>>>>Or is this the magic cycle tht last until just after the next election?
>>>>
>>>>Vince
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vince
>>>
>>> Go talk to one of the MBA types. Cyclical economics have been with us
>>> for a long time, and the cycles are not uniform. A sitting President has
>>> very little impact on the economy, it is self driven.
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>>you can crap it up. Big tax cuts paid for by big deficit spending,
>>
>>o yea you can crap it up
>>
>>vince
>
>Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
>modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
>and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
I've been entertained by some articles pointing out that the deficit
is actually made worse by our depend upon taxing the 'rich'...their
income falls far faster than the average in the event of downturns and
we therefore have bigger deficits than a more broadly based tax
structure. California is particularly guilty of this: did you know
their tax office is calle "The Board Of Equalization" they were brain
dead even in earlier periods.
William Black
> In message <bnmjl2$l...@library1.airnews.net>, Chris Vail
> <a0008573@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> writes
> >MRE's are used on peacetime manuevers
> >almost exclusively
>
> Interesting. UK forces use 'compo' (ration packs - several types in use,
> for individual, fireteam and section use) only when alternatives are not
> available (like, much of wartime). Ratpacks are nutritious and
> sustaining, but also rapidly pall in their attraction (especially in a
> hot climate). Where possible, field feeding is used, with a field
> kitchen set up and food brought up in hayboxes or Norwegians to troops
> who can't get there; better yet, a proper feeding arrangement with fresh
> food available, though that's normally only possible after the fighting
> settles down.
>
>
> Ratpacks were usually used for about half the meals on exercises to
> ensure familiarity with them and to ease logistics, but there was no
> dogmatic "you will live on compo in the field" order. In fact quite the
> opposite: it was considered a test of skill for the CSS units to get
> palatable hot food up to units busy with other roles, just as it was for
> platoon commanders to know where they were and be able to get to the DRV
> (Dinner Rendezvous) for some hot scoff.
There is another issue with British rat packs.
They are low bulk, low roughage.
Soldiers eating them tend to pass solids (I can't think of a more decorous
way of saying that) about once every 48 hours when eating them, and that
action causes some discomfort due to the hard texture of the stool.
British soldiers are not keen on this, and neither are their officers, as
said officers tend to insist on eating the same food as their men...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Alan Minyard wrote:.
> >
> >vince
>
> Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
> modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
> and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
you have the cart and the horse backwards. Low interest rates are a function of the
recession. normally low interest rates are used to pull the economy out of recession while
deficit spending primes the pump
but to do that you have to get money into the hands of low income people instead of priming
the pump we handed the money to busho's rich friends. They stick it in a trust fund.
>
> There is also the fact that fighting terrorism is rather expensive,
> would you prefer it if we cut welfare to finance it? The "big tax
> cuts" are neither big nor the cause of the budget shortfall.
Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts since taking office, intended to stoke the economy, also
contributed to
a record budget deficit of $374 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates
for fiscal 2003. The Federal
Reserve has sought to promote growth by cutting the federal funds rate to a 45-year low.
"There's not many tools in the toolbox left in either fiscal or monetary policy," Woodward
said in an interview. "What else can the government do? Probably not much in terms of job
creation."
Slow job growth may deter Bush re-election
By Michael Forsythe, Bloomberg News
October 17, 2003
Mr. Greenspan, a prudent man, has always been careful not to directly criticize his
president despite his concerns about tax cuts fuelling the now huge and war-driven U.S.
deficit.
U.S. Fed walks fine line on economy call
How can it say it is encouraged without spooking
markets?
Peter Morton
Financial Post Tuesday, October 28, 2003
this is a canadian paper
We did cut welfare and we did tremendosuly increase the tax burden on the poor.
we increased tuition for middle class kids by 20 %
that is why the economy is still in the toilet.
vince
Jim
> about par for your course.
No, There were murder Victems due to failed political policys.
And yes with clinton it was par for the course.
> > Care to estimate the damage to the economy caused by 9-11 that was the
> > result of a Man more interested in internal
> > problems (interns and blue dresses) then external threats I.E. Osama...
>
> Care to point out who predicted the attack and presented the prediciton to
> Clinton?
Well since that had already tried to blow the building up once before while
he was in office I don't think it is rocket science.
they tried to sink the cole while he was in office, the blew up the kenyan
embasy while he was in office.
> political use of 9/11 is really desperate.
Denial of the damage done by 9/11 and that it could have been prevented had
the previous administration taken
effective action against Osama after Kenya and the USS cole. (naval
content).
I would be happy to conceed if you produce the Exec order saying to strike
Osama and showing he effectivly did so.
> wher is the doucment that says don't kill OBL signed Bill clinton
That was words from his own lips... course there is a creditability problen
there.....
Jim
Kevin Brooks
> would
> have
> >> >> had to have been very, very low (i.e., nearly on the surface) to get
> painted.
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > > > Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
> > > > economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
> > > > are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
> > > > indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
> > > > as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
> > > > credit Bush with those same gains?
> > > >
> > >
> > > When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
> > > over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
> > > Clinton
> > > Ill credit bush
> > >
> > > until then he is a loser
> > >
> > > vince
> >
> > The usual cop out; do you always throw that many conditionals into the
> > mix? Which criteria will you use, as you stated two--when the economy
> > recovers to the level that existed when Clinton left office,
>
> a fairly low standard
(Google is killing me--third attempt at response)
So you are finally acknowledging that the economy was indeed in
decline before Bush took office?
>
> > or when
> > it it reaches that ambiguous "prosperity" that existed (sometime?)
> > during the Clinton administration? The indicators were pointing
> > downhill when Clinton left office; if they turn around, you are not
> > willing to credit Bush with the same level of impact that you so
> > besottedly grace Clinton with? That is rather unfair.
> >
> > The economy is largely cyclical, Vkince; get it through your head. The
> > economy is too distributed/widespread to be severely impacted by the
> > administration in power *either* way; get that through your head as
> > well.
>
> The Economy is cyclcal
Glad to see you finally have realized it is cyclical.
> the pain we inflict on the poor in cynical
Eh?
>
> Since Bush took over there have been massive tax cuts for his wealth campaign contributors and massive
> service cuts
> for lower income americans. ther is a massive budget deficit for our children to pay but There are 3
> million fewer employed Amercans than when he took office.
You got a tax rebate--are you one of those wealthy contributors? It is
always laughable when the liberal wealthy (and from what you have told
us about you and your wife's jobs, it is safe to assume that you are
significantly more wealthy than the majority of us munchkins) jump on
their high horses and start braying about the evils of wealth and the
wealthy.
Hmmm...how much did those democratic administrations spend on
increased make-work programs, while increasing the deficit? And your
source was...?
And which are you, a deficit lover or a deficit hawk? You crow that
Clinton was great and had low deficits (I note that you (again)
snipped, without acknowledgement, the info I provided, including
quotes from Clinton-insiders, as to his unwillingness to confront the
deficit issue), and bemoan Bush for having reinstituted deficit
spending.
But since Clinton was unwilling to confront the deficit until he was
forced to, in order to avoid being rolled up in the same stampede that
was the 94 mid-term election, if you are really anti-deficit then you
must admire the Republican congress for taming the deficits in the
mid-nineties, right?
On the other hand, if you are not anti-deficit, then you have been
throwing rocks at Bush for something you hold to be of little import.
Which is it? And do you think you can get through a response without
snipping away those pesky items you are unwilling to address, or
discomfited by?
Brooks
>
> Some cycle
>
> Vince
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > > > Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
> > > > economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
> > > > are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
> > > > indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
> > > > as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
> > > > credit Bush with those same gains?
> > > >
> > >
> > > When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
> > > over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
> > > Clinton
> > > Ill credit bush
> > >
> > > until then he is a loser
> > >
> > > vince
> >
> > The usual cop out; do you always throw that many conditionals into the
> > mix? Which criteria will you use, as you stated two--when the economy
> > recovers to the level that existed when Clinton left office,
>
> a fairly low standard
>
Crap, now I have to do a Mea Culpa; in my response to this, I thought
you had snipped the quotes on the deficit policy of your hero Clinton.
But you did not; those quotes were in another subthread. My apologies.
Brooks
<snip>
Paul J. Adam
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:rNsUlHgxXun$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> ensure familiarity with them and to ease logistics, but there was no
>> dogmatic "you will live on compo in the field" order. In fact quite the
>> opposite: it was considered a test of skill for the CSS units to get
>> palatable hot food up to units busy with other roles, just as it was for
>> platoon commanders to know where they were and be able to get to the DRV
>> (Dinner Rendezvous) for some hot scoff.
>
>There is another issue with British rat packs.
>
>They are low bulk, low roughage.
And MREs are any better?
Paul J. Adam
<a0008573@NOT_THIS.airmail.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:rNsUlHgxXun$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> ensure familiarity with them and to ease logistics, but there was no
>> dogmatic "you will live on compo in the field" order. In fact quite the
>> opposite: it was considered a test of skill for the CSS units to get
>> palatable hot food up to units busy with other roles, just as it was for
>> platoon commanders to know where they were and be able to get to the DRV
>> (Dinner Rendezvous) for some hot scoff.
>
>I've heard both tales out of Ft. Hood:
>the cooks who have to set up field kitchens
>and eating another round of MRE's. A lot
>of it depends on the exercise. Some US
>reservations are HUGE, and it is easy to
>be more than a day's drive away from
>the nearest Mess Hall. Its equally inconvenient
>to move the field kitchens.
It's their _job_ to get into position to feed the troops, Chris! Why are
they not doing this in exercises? (And does that explain why they
apparently aren't doing it on operations either? In which case, why have
them?)
>Quite frankly,
>ordering out for pizza for a couple of hundred
>hungry soldiers is NOT uncommon.
That's a pretty damning indictment if it's a regular event. Most
resourceful platoon commanders have managed to arrange a dawn delivery
of hot chips for all on the morning of the Big Final Attack (worked
wonders for our morale...) but it should be an occasional luxury, not an
excuse for the catering troops not to be doing their jobs.
>I know
>of one situation where both the MRE's AND
>the field kitchens were too far away across a
>flooded river, so the Captain ordered 50 buckets
>of fried chicken to be delivered to the nearest gate
>from a Killeen restaurant. Cell phones are good
>for that kind of thing. This, of course, is one of
>those tales told by soldiers over beer, so take
>that for what its worth.....
Oh, it happens, and it's remarkably good for morale when it does (and in
my case, there were no cellphones - this was 1990 in the wilds of
Scotland, I have no idea how the order was placed and collected but it
didn't get planned by radio except for scrounging a Land Rover lift to
collect the food and bring it to our harbour: I know because I _was_
that platoon signaller)
But it's a bonus, not a replacement for proper logistics. The way you're
telling it, the US troops whose job it is to keep the frontline fed are
basically kicking back and subcontracting the job to local business...
fine as long as you only ever fight in and around Fort Hood, and the
enemy never learns to target the fast-food wagons.
>> I've heard it alleged that US forces in Iraq were still stuck on MREs
>> for food, but had dismissed that as propaganda. You're saying it's true
>> and the US _still_ has no better field feeding organisation than MREs?
>> That's a staggering indictment, if true.
>
>It'll all depend of the local infrastructure, methinks.
>There are a lot of detached units operating
>independantly.
Sure, but that's no reason to leave them on MREs and nothing but. The US
doesn't have the means or ability to support its troops?
>The much-maligned
>Haliburton is providing a lot of meals and
>clean uniforms in some areas, but some
>grunts have gone weeks without a change
>of clothes. This from our own JMA.
Sounds like the US is in the opposite situation to us, then: we came in
with all sorts of shortages (many reasons, ranging from mistakes and
inefficiency, to Resource Accounting, to overreliance on UORs) and put
them right. The US seems to have arrived with plenty of kit, but been
unable to then properly sustain what it brought.
Open to correction from those with better data.
>I seriously doubt that any front-line troops
>get "3 hots and a cot" every day.
No doubt, but inability to manage any better feeding arrangements than
MREs this far into the conflict is damning if true.
>> It's been a solid military success to date, but then I never claimed it
>> would be otherwise.
>
>To hear the shrill voices from the
>'merkin left, you'd think we'd already
>lost.
Militarily or politically? One is a clear success, the other is still
playing out.
>> The trouble is, it's not sufficient to win every major battle and then
>> go home. The final success is measured by the stable end state: pulling
>> out and leaving a fragile nation-state to be rapidly dismembered by
>> internal or external attack is not "victory".
>
>That is a political issue, not a military one.
"War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to
fulfil our will." (C. von Clausewitz)
If they refuse to fulfil our will, we've failed to win the war.
Now, what were we there to do, have we done it yet, and if not is
success in sight?
>We lost VN politically long before the
>first drawdown of troops there. Lets hope
>the American people continue to support
>our efforts there. Congress (the opposite
>of progress) sooner or later has to pay
>attention to the voters.
As you say, you lost Vietnam politically... and Congress listens to the
voters. Right now they're continuing to support policy; that isn't a
permanent given.
The trouble is, having jumped in, the US now is committed; a prompt "cut
your losses" retreat now might end up being popular domestically but
will seriously harm US credibility over future interventions, both at
home and abroad.
Unfortunately, it's easy to point out problems and a _lot_ harder to
find reliable solutions.
>> Unfortunately, it's the loser who decides when they've lost...
>
>Either that, or they die and everything
>else is moot.
Even Genghis Khan had trouble depopulating entire countries.
Alan Minyard
>
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:.
>
>> >
>> >vince
>>
>> Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
>> modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
>> and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
>
>you have the cart and the horse backwards. Low interest rates are a function of the
>recession. normally low interest rates are used to pull the economy out of recession while
>deficit spending primes the pump
No, interest rates are reactive. You hope that the reaction will solve whatever
problem you are addressing
>but to do that you have to get money into the hands of low income people instead of priming
>the pump we handed the money to busho's rich friends. They stick it in a trust fund.
>
Low income folks do not prime the pump.
>> There is also the fact that fighting terrorism is rather expensive,
>> would you prefer it if we cut welfare to finance it? The "big tax
>> cuts" are neither big nor the cause of the budget shortfall.
>
>Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts since taking office, intended to stoke the economy, also
>contributed to
> a record budget deficit of $374 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates
>for fiscal 2003. The Federal
> Reserve has sought to promote growth by cutting the federal funds rate to a 45-year low.
>"There's not many tools in the toolbox left in either fiscal or monetary policy," Woodward
>said in an interview. "What else can the government do? Probably not much in terms of job
>creation."
The economy is not a function of Government, it is a function of, well, the economy.
>
>Slow job growth may deter Bush re-election
> By Michael Forsythe, Bloomberg News
> October 17, 2003
>
>
>
> Mr. Greenspan, a prudent man, has always been careful not to directly criticize his
>president despite his concerns about tax cuts fuelling the now huge and war-driven U.S.
>deficit.
>U.S. Fed walks fine line on economy call
> How can it say it is encouraged without spooking
> markets?
>
> Peter Morton
> Financial Post Tuesday, October 28, 2003
>this is a canadian paper
>
>
>
>
>
>We did cut welfare and we did tremendosuly increase the tax burden on the poor.
>
>we increased tuition for middle class kids by 20 %
>
>that is why the economy is still in the toilet.
>
>vince
Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And, yes, the "Canadian
Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
Al Minyard
William Black
> In message <bnp252$qmo$4...@hercules.btinternet.com>, William Black
> <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
> >There is another issue with British rat packs.
> >
> >They are low bulk, low roughage.
>
> And MREs are any better?
If people live on them for long periods they probably are.
Doctors don't recommend living on British rat pack for more than a couple of
weeks or medical problems may arise.
ZZBunker
> Alan Minyard wrote:.
>
> > >
> > >vince
> >
> > Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
> > modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
> > and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
>
> you have the cart and the horse backwards. Low interest rates are a function of the
> recession. normally low interest rates are used to pull the economy out of recession while
> deficit spending primes the pump
> but to do that you have to get money into the hands of low income people instead of priming
> the pump we handed the money to busho's rich friends. They stick it in a trust fund.
But they's always done that. It's called among things the
Social Security fund. Which is why most people in the
US have told both the Republican and Democrats
Parties that you can stick your Social Security in
some Lawyers pocket, since the rest of here
for the real wood money, and not the "trust me" money.
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>political use of murder victims,
>>about par for your course.
>
>
> No, There were murder Victems due to failed political policys.
> And yes with clinton it was par for the course.
>
>
>
>>>Care to estimate the damage to the economy caused by 9-11 that was the
>>>result of a Man more interested in internal
>>>problems (interns and blue dresses) then external threats I.E. Osama...
>>
>>Care to point out who predicted the attack and presented the prediciton to
>>Clinton?
>
>
> Well since that had already tried to blow the building up once before while
> he was in office I don't think it is rocket science.
> they tried to sink the cole while he was in office, the blew up the kenyan
> embasy while he was in office.
so if clinton is to blame for these, rather than his predecessors.
bush carrys the can for 9/11
after all with al.lyour wisdom why didnt he have osama elimianted.
or did he really want 9/11
hows that for a thought
whyd didnt busho have osama killed right away if its so easy?
Vince
vince
Chris Vail
As I mentioned, it depends on the exercise.
I'm only familiar with a few tales out of
Ft. Hood, and these are probably NOT
the norm.
Also, MRE's have a long, but limited shelf
life. They have to be eaten or discarded.
Using them on exercises can actually save
money.
> >Quite frankly,
> >ordering out for pizza for a couple of hundred
> >hungry soldiers is NOT uncommon.
>
> That's a pretty damning indictment if it's a regular event. Most
> resourceful platoon commanders have managed to arrange a dawn delivery
> of hot chips for all on the morning of the Big Final Attack (worked
> wonders for our morale...) but it should be an occasional luxury, not an
> excuse for the catering troops not to be doing their jobs.
AFAIK, there's only been real problems
when rains flood the creeks and rivers.
It doesn't stop the combat training, but
non-combat ops are seriously limited.
Hence MRE's may be choppered in when
the original plan called for a field kitchen.
> >I know
> >of one situation where both the MRE's AND
> >the field kitchens were too far away across a
> >flooded river, so the Captain ordered 50 buckets
> >of fried chicken to be delivered to the nearest gate
> >from a Killeen restaurant. Cell phones are good
> >for that kind of thing. This, of course, is one of
> >those tales told by soldiers over beer, so take
> >that for what its worth.....
>
> Oh, it happens, and it's remarkably good for morale when it does (and in
> my case, there were no cellphones - this was 1990 in the wilds of
> Scotland, I have no idea how the order was placed and collected but it
> didn't get planned by radio except for scrounging a Land Rover lift to
> collect the food and bring it to our harbour: I know because I _was_
> that platoon signaller)
>
> But it's a bonus, not a replacement for proper logistics. The way you're
> telling it, the US troops whose job it is to keep the frontline fed are
> basically kicking back and subcontracting the job to local business...
> fine as long as you only ever fight in and around Fort Hood, and the
> enemy never learns to target the fast-food wagons.
D'ya think Col. Sanders has an outlet in Baghdad?
After all, he's a military guy, right?
> >> I've heard it alleged that US forces in Iraq were still stuck on MREs
> >> for food, but had dismissed that as propaganda. You're saying it's true
> >> and the US _still_ has no better field feeding organisation than MREs?
> >> That's a staggering indictment, if true.
> >
> >It'll all depend of the local infrastructure, methinks.
> >There are a lot of detached units operating
> >independantly.
>
> Sure, but that's no reason to leave them on MREs and nothing but. The US
> doesn't have the means or ability to support its troops?
Again: it'll depend on local circumstance.
They're still doing combat ops....its not a
garrison force (yet) but I suspect that this
is changing.
My last email from JMA indicated that he'd
be delighted with a hot meal 3x a day, but
that these were few and far between. Patrolling
and guarding munitions stockpiles were more
important.
> >The much-maligned
> >Haliburton is providing a lot of meals and
> >clean uniforms in some areas, but some
> >grunts have gone weeks without a change
> >of clothes. This from our own JMA.
>
> Sounds like the US is in the opposite situation to us, then: we came in
> with all sorts of shortages (many reasons, ranging from mistakes and
> inefficiency, to Resource Accounting, to overreliance on UORs) and put
> them right. The US seems to have arrived with plenty of kit, but been
> unable to then properly sustain what it brought.
I don't think its a question of ability, or
even willingness. Rather, the on-scene
commanders have the ability to call the
shots. Fortunately, this operation is not
being run from DC or even Kuwait, but
by the Captains, Majors and Colonels
who are right there. When the security
and logistics are there, then so too are
the hot meals and clean uniforms (this
is really true in Kuwait). But why would
a front-line commander risk the support
troops? Iraq is still "indian country"
and the good guys are killed all the time
there.
> Open to correction from those with better data.
Indeed.
> >I seriously doubt that any front-line troops
> >get "3 hots and a cot" every day.
>
> No doubt, but inability to manage any better feeding arrangements than
> MREs this far into the conflict is damning if true.
I have a different take: security overides
hot meals. Well-fed, but dead soldiers are
a "bad thing".
> >> It's been a solid military success to date, but then I never claimed it
> >> would be otherwise.
> >
> >To hear the shrill voices from the
> >'merkin left, you'd think we'd already
> >lost.
>
> Militarily or politically? One is a clear success, the other is still
> playing out.
Yep.
> >> The trouble is, it's not sufficient to win every major battle and then
> >> go home. The final success is measured by the stable end state: pulling
> >> out and leaving a fragile nation-state to be rapidly dismembered by
> >> internal or external attack is not "victory".
> >
> >That is a political issue, not a military one.
>
> "War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to
> fulfil our will." (C. von Clausewitz)
>
> If they refuse to fulfil our will, we've failed to win the war.
Note that this is a "hearts and minds" issue,
not necessarily a question of tactics or firepower.
I think we're winning the hearts and minds campaign
too, but this is seriously underreported in the media.
> Now, what were we there to do, have we done it yet, and if not is
> success in sight?
Contrast Berlin in 1945--the last confirmed
military operation by die-hard Nazis was in
1949--4 years AFTER the surrender. We
"won" Germany, but some people took
a little more persuasion. How could anyone
expect Iraq to be any different?
> >We lost VN politically long before the
> >first drawdown of troops there. Lets hope
> >the American people continue to support
> >our efforts there. Congress (the opposite
> >of progress) sooner or later has to pay
> >attention to the voters.
>
> As you say, you lost Vietnam politically... and Congress listens to the
> voters. Right now they're continuing to support policy; that isn't a
> permanent given.
Which is why politics are so contentious:
real lives are at stake in this--much more
than political careers.
> The trouble is, having jumped in, the US now is committed; a prompt "cut
> your losses" retreat now might end up being popular domestically but
> will seriously harm US credibility over future interventions, both at
> home and abroad.
I don't think a "cut your losses" retreat
would be widely supported here. The press
doesn't report how much the 'merkin
people DO support the efforts in Iraq.
> Unfortunately, it's easy to point out problems and a _lot_ harder to
> find reliable solutions.
Yep. The only one I know is "Stay
the course". Sometimes the best way
to deal with a problem is right through the
middle of it.
> >> Unfortunately, it's the loser who decides when they've lost...
> >
> >Either that, or they die and everything
> >else is moot.
>
> Even Genghis Khan had trouble depopulating entire countries.
I don't know that any US supporter of the war
has ever proposed or supported depopulating
Iraq. It seems that the US is popular there, and
that most of the jihadis are foreigners--non Iraqis.
I'd like to see the US close Iraq's borders. But
this would require an even greater presence.
Chris
Vince Brannigan
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message news:<3F9FD734...@umd.edu>...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Answer the question--how do you find it so easy to credit Clinton with
>>>>>economic gains, and not economic losses, while at the same time you
>>>>>are only willing to credit Bush with economic losses, and should the
>>>>>indicators start reflecting gains (as we saw today--no surprise there,
>>>>>as the item I cited to you proved correct so far), not willing to
>>>>>credit Bush with those same gains?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When and if the economy recovers to the point it was at when Bush took
>>>>over and when and if it gets back to the prosperity it enjoyed under
>>>>Clinton
>>>>Ill credit bush
>>>>
>>>>until then he is a loser
>>>>
>>>>vince
>>>
>>>The usual cop out; do you always throw that many conditionals into the
>>>mix? Which criteria will you use, as you stated two--when the economy
>>>recovers to the level that existed when Clinton left office,
>>
>>a fairly low standard
>
>
> (Google is killing me--third attempt at response)
>
> So you are finally acknowledging that the economy was indeed in
> decline before Bush took office?
>
>
Doctors bled George Washington to death.
then they siad Oh he was sick when we took all that blood out
Bush took a sick person and killed him quickly
>>Since Bush took over there have been massive tax cuts for his wealth campaign contributors and massive
>>service cuts
>>for lower income americans. ther is a massive budget deficit for our children to pay but There are 3
>>million fewer employed Amercans than when he took office.
>
>
> You got a tax rebate--are you one of those wealthy contributors? It is
> always laughable when the liberal wealthy (and from what you have told
> us about you and your wife's jobs, it is safe to assume that you are
> significantly more wealthy than the majority of us munchkins) jump on
> their high horses and start braying about the evils of wealth and the
> wealthy.
>
Oh I'm wealthy enough to be a republican, My conscience gets in the way.
I was a scholarship kid to college. now we grind the working poor into
the mud
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:43:21 -0500, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Alan Minyard wrote:.
>>
>>
>>>>vince
>>>
>>>Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
>>>modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
>>>and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
>>
>>you have the cart and the horse backwards. Low interest rates are a function of the
>>recession. normally low interest rates are used to pull the economy out of recession while
>>deficit spending primes the pump
>
>
> No, interest rates are reactive. You hope that the reaction will solve whatever
> problem you are addressing
no. interst rates are the last vestige of a command economy. they are
set by the federal reserve board for monetary poliy purposes.
>
>>but to do that you have to get money into the hands of low income people instead of priming
>>the pump we handed the money to busho's rich friends. They stick it in a trust fund.
>>
>
> Low income folks do not prime the pump.
yes they do they spend the money
>
>
> Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And, yes, the "Canadian
> Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
:news:VBLbWCjTYCo$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
:> In message <bnp252$qmo$4...@hercules.btinternet.com>, William Black
:> <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
:
:> >There is another issue with British rat packs.
:> >
:> >They are low bulk, low roughage.
:>
:> And MREs are any better?
:
:If people live on them for long periods they probably are.
:
:Doctors don't recommend living on British rat pack for more than a couple of
:weeks or medical problems may arise.
MREs have a similar problem, due to their low water content. One of
the things troops are taught (and often screw up) is to drink a LOT of
water when you're living on MREs.
We generally didn't live on them except when well out in the boonies.
Otherwise, you'd rig a kitchen and at least have T-rats.
--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:Alan Minyard wrote:
:>
:> No, interest rates are reactive. You hope that the reaction will solve whatever
:> problem you are addressing
:
:no. interst rates are the last vestige of a command economy. they are
:set by the federal reserve board for monetary poliy purposes.
No. The Fed sets the Fed Funds rate. This isn't a rate you or I can
borrow at.
:> Low income folks do not prime the pump.
:
:yes they do they spend the money
If you truly want to 'prime the economy', you're both wrong. You need
to put money into the hands of folks who will go out and buy durable
goods to lead the economy. This is generally the upper middle class.
:> Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And, yes, the "Canadian
:> Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
:
:nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
Common knowledge, and like much such, it turns out to be false when a
little thought is applied. The poor spend a larger proportion of
their income on food than other groups, right? That is, after all, a
consequence of being poor. Most states don't impose sales tax on food
products.
:so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
And what are all the taxes taken from the rest of us to fund such
services?
You're living in a fantasy, Vince. The highest overall effective tax
rate is, as usual, squarely on the middle class. The upper income
folks pay a much higher percentage of FEDERAL taxes, though. Of
course, you no doubt would prefer to blame GWB for State taxes, too.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Alan Minyard
>
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:43:21 -0500, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Alan Minyard wrote:.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>vince
>>>>
>>>>Get real. Interest rates are at or near record low levels for the
>>>>modern era. The negative effect of deficit spending is inflation
>>>>and high interest rates. We currently have neither.
>>>
>>>you have the cart and the horse backwards. Low interest rates are a function of the
>>>recession. normally low interest rates are used to pull the economy out of recession while
>>>deficit spending primes the pump
>>
>>
>> No, interest rates are reactive. You hope that the reaction will solve whatever
>> problem you are addressing
>
>no. interst rates are the last vestige of a command economy. they are
>set by the federal reserve board for monetary poliy purposes.
>
>>
They are set to promote fiscal policy, but they are still reactive.
>>>but to do that you have to get money into the hands of low income people instead of priming
>>>the pump we handed the money to busho's rich friends. They stick it in a trust fund.
>>>
>>
>> Low income folks do not prime the pump.
>
>yes they do they spend the money
>
Not enough to have a real effect on the overall economy.
Note that consumer spending has just posted the largest
gains since 1958 (~6%)
>>
>>
>> Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And, yes, the "Canadian
>> Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
>
>nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
>so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
>
>Vince
The Federal Govt does not collect sales taxes.
Al Minyard
Jim
while
> > he was in office I don't think it is rocket science.
> > they tried to sink the cole while he was in office, the blew up the
kenyan
> > embasy while he was in office.
>
>
> so if clinton is to blame for these, rather than his predecessors.
>
> bush carrys the can for 9/11
>
>
> after all with al.lyour wisdom why didnt he have osama elimianted.
>
> or did he really want 9/11
>
> hows that for a thought
>
> whyd didnt busho have osama killed right away if its so easy?
>
> Vince
>
> vince
Vince
I am not real sure what your trying to say but Ill take a stab at it.
NSA was evesdropping on Osama's Sat phone for a time until the Clinton Admin
tipped our hand.
That is called a compromise of classified material... Also a MAJOR Phu-pa
along the lines of comprising Magic in WWII...
After the compromise tracking Osama became much more difficult. They were
idiots he wasn't ...
I guess you could say they not only fialed to act when they could but
screwed up so bad as to make it hard for others (with a pair) to act.
Jim..
Vince Brannigan
Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>>no. interest rates are the last vestige of a command economy. they are
>>set by the federal reserve board for monetary poliy purposes.
>>
>>
> They are set to promote fiscal policy, but they are still reactive.
In the trivial sense that absolutely all human activity is reactive
sure. (and its monetary policy, fiscal policy is spending money)
>>yes they do they spend the money
>>
>
> Not enough to have a real effect on the overall economy.
> Note that consumer spending has just posted the largest
> gains since 1958 (~6%)
>
becasue of the poriton of the tax cut that went to low and moderate
income people. I fully agree that a tax cut focusssed on low to
moderate income peopel is god policy.
"Consumer spending gained at a hefty 6.6 percent pace as lower tax
withholding on paychecks and child tax credit checks put more cash in
shoppers' hands. It was the biggest increase in consumer outlays since
early 1988 and accounted for nearly two-thirds of GDP growth."
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=10528
>>Vince
>
>
> The Federal Govt does not collect sales taxes.
>
so what? there is an enormous deficit at the state level whichi s being
filled with regressive taxes on the poor.
Vince
Jim
> > Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And,
yes, the "Canadian
> > Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
>
> nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
> so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
>
> Vince
Let test the theory...
I buy a $500.00 TV and sit on may a$$ watching it.
My Boss Buys a 25million dollor Printing press,
then Hires 15 people to crew it.....
another 15 people in the bindery,
2 sales guys to sell the press time,
2 truckers to haul the paper and printed material
Yea tax the rich guy to death.... send the jobs to china.
To note with the tax breaks and advanced depreciation going Our company
purchesed 8 new printing presses, 3 finishing lines, and just broke ground
on a additional 500,000sq ft plant On Oklomha city (expected to grow to
1,000,000 sq ft.). I would guess that would be called a good thing in
economic circles...
Jim
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>>
>
> I am not real sure what your trying to say but Ill take a stab at it.
> NSA was evesdropping on Osama's Sat phone for a time until the Clinton Admin
> tipped our hand.
> That is called a compromise of classified material... Also a MAJOR Phu-pa
> along the lines of comprising Magic in WWII...
> After the compromise tracking Osama became much more difficult. They were
> idiots he wasn't ...
> I guess you could say they not only fialed to act when they could but
> screwed up so bad as to make it hard for others (with a pair) to act.
>
OFCS
everyone knew that the NSA was listening to cellphones
it wasn't a secret
USA today 1998
Information from intercepted phone calls. The supersecret National
Security Agency in Fort Meade, Md., uses computers to automatically scan
tapped international phone calls. A signals satellite hovering 22,500
miles above the earth picks out international phone calls carried by
satellite.
On the ground, worldwide electronic listening posts at places such as
U.S. military installations also intercept calls, Pike says. Radio
traffic between remote terrorist training camps are monitored.
Intelligence agents can even monitor conversations in rooms where
suspected terrorists might meet by picking up vibrations on window panes.
The telephone numbers and locations of known terrorists and terrorist
organizations are automatically targeted. Computers decide whether to
alert analysts to other calls by using software that scans for key
words. Any mention of words like "bomb" or "attack" would automatically
raise alarm. So would names, such as bin Laden, as well as terrorist
nicknames and code words.
Although terrorists such as bin Laden are aware of these methods and
insulate themselves from issuing direct orders, a former U.S. official
says that bin Laden had a fondness for using his cell phone. That may
have helped lead to him in the Africa bombing.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/08/acovfri.ht
Vince
Jim
Oh Vince that is something called 500 new Jobs with benefits, in the plant,
I can't say how many construction jobs it produced.
But I would assume that it is a positive development, and an increased tax
base, I would think Oklahoma feels it is a good thing...
My fiancé's is what could be called working poor.... she works 50 hours a
week at 8.50 an hour and raises 2 kids.
She gets a small amount of assistance from the state, more from me, so I
do understand what is going on.
Because I understand I am sending her through school (first CNA, then on to
LPN, finially RN) to change that, but it is a long row to hoe.
In the long run Bobi is better served by a tight employmet market, that
happens when Manufactorires are placed in a positive position to invest in
equipment and facilities and to hire more workers. Bobi can't affect that
there is nothing the system can do that would allow her to hire 500 people
and make a 1/2 billion doller economic impact.
However, The tax incentives made it attractive to our company to make the
capital equipment and facilities investment of that magnatude.
Jim
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>>Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And,
>>
> yes, the "Canadian
>
>>>Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
>>
>>nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
>>so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
>>
>>Vince
>
>
>
>
> Let test the theory...
> I buy a $500.00 TV and sit on may a$$ watching it.
>
Generating a job for a TV set manufacturer
> My Boss Buys a 25million dollor Printing press,
> then Hires 15 people to crew it.....
> another 15 people in the bindery,
> 2 sales guys to sell the press time,
> 2 truckers to haul the paper and printed material
>
> Yea tax the rich guy to death.... send the jobs to china.
its a meaningless comparison. e.g. Suppose your boss is the government
printing office.
you left out the key issue what is he printing and who is buying it?
what made him "rich" i.e. what market risks did he take?
what did he pay for the resources. what is he selling and to whom.
For example
1) he is a big Bush supporter and gets a no bid contract to print maps
of iraq. He makes a bundle and gratefully funnels the money back to the
GOP
2) He organizes a non profit charity that gets tax deductible
contributions and makes a sweetheart deal with him to do all the
printing. (this is actually more common)
3) he hires illegal aliens and forces them to kick back wages.
Now assuming he is printing for the commercial market, Taxing the rich
does not send jobs to china. The rich will put the printing press in
China if its more profitable there than here whatever the tax rate.
>
> To note with the tax breaks and advanced depreciation going Our company
> purchesed 8 new printing presses, 3 finishing lines, and just broke ground
> on a additional 500,000sq ft plant On Oklomha city (expected to grow to
> 1,000,000 sq ft.). I would guess that would be called a good thing in
> economic circles...
>
Tax breaks and accelerated depreciation are government subsidies
Scotlan is fullof plants built with governemtn subsidies. when the
subsidy ends, they close.
we just keep the subsidy going forever
Looked at the ecomoics of pro stadiums lately
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>
> However, The tax incentives made it attractive to our company to make the
> capital equipment and facilities investment of that magnatude.
tax incentives for companies whether good or bad have nothing to do with
tax
rates on the rich.
vince
Jim
> insulate themselves from issuing direct orders, a former U.S. official
> says that bin Laden had a fondness for using his cell phone. That may
> have helped lead to him in the Africa bombing.
>
>
> http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/08/acovfri.ht
>
>
> Vince
Vince,
What would have happened if the New youk times would have ran a story
concerning Magic in a March 1942?
Supersecret isn't exactly supersecret if you tell everyone!!!!!
Ok you linked me to a sight that in 1998 was overflowing with information
saying Bin Laden as at war with us.
What military action taken in response to Kenyan embassy and the USS Cole
(both incidents are acts of war )
Did the Clinton Administration take?
Of course the Bush administration responce to the 1st terriorest act on his
watch was the removal of the Taliban,
capture of numerious Al Queda Ring leaders, Osama in a hole with the top
pulled down tight. etc
Thanks for making my case...
Jim
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>Although terrorists such as bin Laden are aware of these methods and
>>insulate themselves from issuing direct orders, a former U.S. official
>>says that bin Laden had a fondness for using his cell phone. That may
>>have helped lead to him in the Africa bombing.
>>
>>
>>http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/08/acovfri.ht
>>
>>
>>Vince
>
>
>
> Vince,
> What would have happened if the New youk times would have ran a story
> concerning Magic in a March 1942?
> Supersecret isn't exactly supersecret if you tell everyone!!!!!
it wasn't a secret. In the early 1990s I taught courses dealing with the
legality of Cell phone evesdropping. Osma is a trained engineer. He
certainly knew he was using the phone.
>
> Ok you linked me to a sight that in 1998 was overflowing with information
> saying Bin Laden as at war with us.
> What military action taken in response to Kenyan embassy and the USS Cole
> (both incidents are acts of war )
> Did the Clinton Administration take?
We tried various fomrs of targeted assasination
As is obvious from the Iraq WMD debacle and the first WTC bombing our
foreign intelligence apparatus is not well designed to deal with
terrorists. there has been a steady stream of terrorist incidents for
over 20 years
>
> Of course the Bush administration responce to the 1st terriorest act on his
> watch was the removal of the Taliban,
> capture of numerious Al Queda Ring leaders, Osama in a hole with the top
> pulled down tight. etc
you could equally say that OBL didn't dare pull off a big attack on the
USA whiel Bill clinot wa president.
both statements are silly
Vince
Jim
--
"The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations
are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they
are no longer strong."
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3FA14AD...@pressroom.com...
A rich man ownes the company.....
Jim
Jim
AHHHHH.... I get it! I get it!
We give a goverment subsidity to a poor person, from money taken from a
rich or middleclass person,
The poor person can buys a cheep TV made in China thereby employing a
chinese child doing slave labor, the profit goes to
the chinese goverment so they can increase their defense spending with the
goal of defeating america... Perfect.
Jim
Vince Brannigan
doesn't matter. He doesn't make he investment because he is rich, the
investment is made because it is profitable. That's why capital markets
exist. the wealth of a society is the same whether the top 1% have it
all or if the top 50% have it all.
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>
> AHHHHH.... I get it! I get it!
>
> We give a goverment subsidity to a poor person, from money taken from a
> rich or middleclass person,
> The poor person can buys a cheep TV made in China thereby employing a
> chinese child doing slave labor, the profit goes to
> the chinese goverment so they can increase their defense spending with the
> goal of defeating america... Perfect.
>
OFCS How much economics have you studied to get there?
Vince
Jim
> doesn't matter. He doesn't make he investment because he is rich, the
> investment is made because it is profitable. That's why capital markets
> exist. the wealth of a society is the same whether the top 1% have it
> all or if the top 50% have it all.
>
> Vince
1. And when you tax it to the point is unprofitable it moves overseas.
2. Execpt Rich/middle class folks invest and Poor folks buy Chinese TV's...
editorial...
I am not Rich, Just middle class who pays way to much taxes.
I have a working poor Fiancé's (we are working to change that)
The little help the government provides her is nice and appreciated,
I have no issue with some limited help for the working poor.
I would perfer however they help the working poor with an education
so they stop being working poor... The idea being to move them up and out
and into the middle class. I have problem with the permeate helping of
the sit on the butt poor. the refusing to move up poor etc.
Education is key (though not in Vince's classes) get them a trade or
education so thay can make a livable wage.
A hand up and out .... Not a hand out. No way the government should be
needing to help them generation after generation.
Jim
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>doesn't matter. He doesn't make he investment because he is rich, the
>>investment is made because it is profitable. That's why capital markets
>>exist. the wealth of a society is the same whether the top 1% have it
>>all or if the top 50% have it all.
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> 1. And when you tax it to the point is unprofitable it moves overseas.
>
nonsense
I move operaitosn overseas if its mroe profitable overseas
has nothing to do with taxes on the owner
>
> Education is key (though not in Vince's classes) get them a trade or
> education so thay can make a livable wage.
> A hand up and out .... Not a hand out. No way the government should be
> needing to help them generation after generation.
How come rich folks parents help them generation after generation
or do you think bush and gore got into yale and harvard without help?
Vince
Jim
Oh when I strech things a tad I get OFCS and when you strech things past
belivability it is the gospal from Paul...
The above hyperbole was out there a bit... The point is you average poor
person dosn't invest they
are to busy jusy getting buy paying the light bill and food etc. It is the
middle class and predomanatly t
he upperclass that Invests capital. You have to have it, to invest it.
They invest Capital because (as you
said) it is profitable. When you make it unprofitable they don't invest it
in that market.
I have no problem with My boss getting rich, he worked for it, he took risks
I would deem unacceptable to take.
In short he earned it. I have no problem his making a profit, hey he could
close the doors, fire us all and he would never hurt not one day.
I however would be in a bad way for a bit... That is the flat truth...
Jim
Alan Minyard
They just announced that the third quarter GDP was up 7,2%. Not bad
for an economy that you think is being mismanaged :-)
Al Minyard
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>OFCS How much economics have you studied to get there?
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> Oh when I strech things a tad I get OFCS and when you strech things past
> belivability it is the gospal from Paul...
>
> The above hyperbole was out there a bit... The point is you average poor
> person dosn't invest they
> are to busy jusy getting buy paying the light bill and food etc. It is the
> middle class and predomanatly t
> he upperclass that Invests capital. You have to have it, to invest it.
> They invest Capital because (as you
> said) it is profitable. When you make it unprofitable they don't invest it
> in that market.
>
> I have no problem with My boss getting rich, he worked for it, he took risks
> I would deem unacceptable to take.
> In short he earned it. I have no problem his making a profit, hey he could
> close the doors, fire us all and he would never hurt not one day.
> I however would be in a bad way for a bit... That is the flat truth...
take a course or two it will help
vince
Vince Brannigan
Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> They just announced that the third quarter GDP was up 7,2%. Not bad
> for an economy that you think is being mismanaged :-)
>
> Al Minyard
its a drunk who feels good.
vince
Jim
> How come rich folks parents help them generation after generation
Case 1
Rich dad pays for son to get Preimere education.
Son then gets high quality employment with upword mobility.
Son has Son and cycle repeats ......
Case 2
Poor mom is High school dropout with 2 illegitimate kids...
Government pays, food stamps, Energy assistance, Medicaid, Wick, Weda etc
etc etc.
Mom is unemployable due to education and unmotivated to get educated.
Mom's daughter sees mom not working and doesn't value an education.
daughter gets knocked up at 15 and drops of school to get her own place
and receive the government food stamps, Energy assistance, Medicaid, Wick,
Weda etc etc etc.
and the cycle repeats.
The diffrance is
Case 1, Rich dad foots the bill for son. Not Taxpayer money
Case 2, Goverment (taxpayers) foots the Bill for lazy person and is pouring
tax dollars down down a hole.
That is my tax dollars hardly at work.
Case 2 Occasional Exception poor person is motivated not to be poor person,
works butt off to continue education
pulling themselves up by their bootstraps into middleclass. This
seen most often with Asian immigrants.
Vince send me a check for 20,000 dollars so I can send My fience' to college
for Nursing (on your dime) your being a righ person and .
your being all into social consecence and assisting the less fortunate etc
etc etc... She is poor now (was 19 year stay at home mom who got married 2nd
year of college) We both know the key is education....
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day Teach a man to fish and feed him
for a lifetime.
Jim
Jim
> take a course or two it will help
>
> vince
Vince eduction is required to "Pay your dues" granted but it isn't perfect
either.
As I say some of the Dumbist people I know graduated college.
Real life is also an eductaion (one that many educators miss out on)...
I started in the class room, Then progressed to living in the real world,
were circuits need ajustable compenents
because noting is made perfectly and were things sometime don't work
perfectly...
Prefer to live in the real world to the ivory tower.
Jim
ZZBunker
> > > Quoting biased reports does not do much to reenforce your position. And,
> yes, the "Canadian
> > > Paper" is most definitely biases. There is no tax burden on "the poor".
> >
> > nonsense. sales takses are mong the msot regressive taxes we have
> > so are fees for governemtn services needed by the poor
> >
> > Vince
>
>
>
> Let test the theory...
> I buy a $500.00 TV and sit on may a$$ watching it.
But, the real bosses buy $billion dollar broadcasting
Networks that employ a million people constantly.
Mostly to tell truckers to stop hauling
paper and starting hauling radios.
>
> My Boss Buys a 25million dollor Printing press,
> then Hires 15 people to crew it.....
> another 15 people in the bindery,
> 2 sales guys to sell the press time,
> 2 truckers to haul the paper and printed material
>
> Yea tax the rich guy to death.... send the jobs to china.
>
>
> To note with the tax breaks and advanced depreciation going Our company
> purchesed 8 new printing presses, 3 finishing lines, and just broke ground
> on a additional 500,000sq ft plant On Oklomha city (expected to grow to
> 1,000,000 sq ft.). I would guess that would be called a good thing in
> economic circles...
It is, but the truckers still have to haul logs to
the paper mill to supply the printing people.
Vince Brannigan
Jim wrote:
>>How come rich folks parents help them generation after generation
>
> yea but they help with their own money.
>
> Case 1
> Rich dad pays for son to get Preimere education.
> Son then gets high quality employment with upword mobility.
> Son has Son and cycle repeats ......
>
nothignt like inherited wealth
How about this one
poor irish immigrant works for A&P
son goes to college gets government job
he is a war veteran marries another veteran
has six kids
kids go to college, most on scholarship
middile son win scholarship, goes to law school
spends career in public service instead of making big bucks
Vince
Vince Brannigan
it will still help to take a course or two
vince
Kevin Brooks
Gee, you are the only guy I heard today who did NOT think this was a
good thing (well, the herd of Democratic presidential pretenders has
not yet weighed in though...).
A higher single quarter increase than we ever saw under Clinton...that
must really catch in your throat, huh? And we have already heard good
news from the housing industry this week, to boot. Gee, if the economy
continues to improve, who are you gonna credit, with a Republican
majority in both houses and one sitting in the White House? I suspect
we will see Vkince become a vocal, newly converted adherent to that
whole "cyclical" thing he has been soundly denying of late, 'cause we
know his bias will prevent him from ever crediting Republicans. Unless
of course he tries to convince us that the Democratic minority,
coupled with the antics of the Ten Stooges on their campaign trail,
are *really* deserving of such credit....
Brooks
>
> vince