I appreciate you taking the time to write something intelligent. Your thoughts have some merit, no doubt about it, but the entire picture is not being represented.
dbchandler1 said:
What the Hell............ I'm bored
1. Booming economy? I have a couple left leaning economist friends and one of the few things that we all agree on is that presidents dont make economies, economies make presidents. I believe it was the technology boom that made the economy of the nineties you remember the whole dot.com thing. but i guess Al Gore did invent the internet so maybe you were right to begin with.
Al Gore aside, it's really a matter of opinion as to how much impact presidents have on the economy. I will say that when good things happen on a presidents watch to the economy, they tend to get a lot more credit than they deserve, but saying they have no impact is irresponsible. If they had no impact they would not send econimic stimulus packages to congress and things of the like. What presidents do fiscally has a large impact on interest rates, which have a direct bearing on the economy. For example, Greenspan told Clinton right off the bat in '93 that he was not going to touch, much less lower, interest rates until the budget deficit was reduced in substantial #s. Clinton didn't argue, cause he was smart enough to knowhe'd be wasting his breath. Clinton sent a plan to Congress, the 1993 Economic Stimulus Package to congress that included measures for dwindling the deficit and paying off debt among other things. It worked, and Greenspan gave Clinton credit for being smart enough to see the big picture. Borrowing money just to stay in debt was making no sense at all and Clinton knew that.
I credit Bill Gates with a large part of the good times of the late 90s and early 2000. Directly, he did a lot for technology ,which in turn provided a great source of growth and income for the US. Indirectly, the Clinton Administration was smart enough not to screw that up and embraced technology and fostered its growth such as putting PCs in schools and giving large tax incentives for corporations to do things like that. Think of it like this. Run your own household the way the Gov't was run before Clinton and how it went back to being run after Clinton. Spend several times more than you take in for a year and see what happens. It would be a disaster. Or, do like Clinton insisted on and balance the budget. It's amazing how much extra $ you'll have and spend when all of your debts are paid off and you own nobody anything. It's simple econimics. When the budget was balanced and we had record surpluses, there was a lot of spending going on in the ecomony. Interest rates were low and cars, home sales and new constructions were at record highs.
dbchandler1 said:
2. record high unemployment? see above
I agree, technology had lots to do with that, but certainly not everything. That unemployment was not just centered in Silicon Valley. Even the Taco Bell in Blue Springs, MO was starting folks at 9/hr. Times were good. But you must also contribute that to no deficit, low interest rates, etc which causes people to spend. Or think of it as this, if unemployment was at 10 or 15 percent in November of 2004, would Bush have been reelected? Of course not. Why do you think that is if you say the ecomony or unemployment have nothing to do with the president? Both are impacted by the president to some degree. If the economy were in a 2 year recession, would Bush have been reelected? Once again, no way. His father was not reelected for that exact reason. The economy and unemployment were the 2 biggest issues of the '92 election and both hung Bush out to dry. Perot would have been a no name had the economy been in good shape back then. Bush realized too late those factors, thinking the war victory would seal his reelection, as he had 90% approval ratings in early-mid 1991. Clinton entered the race October 1991 and right away started hammering at the econimc situation of the US, thanks to James Carvill. It worked.
dbchandler1 said:
3. associating with Jack Abrhamoff? Unfortunately too many republicans and democrats did this, read the articles about Harry Reid if you dont believe me. but if you really do believe that taking money from lobbyists is a one-party issue you just havent met enough politicians.
Wrong. There is a huge difference in associating and taking money. Not 1 Democrat, not 1 single Democrat, took money from him, when several republicans did. Here is the confusion: Abramoff gave $ directly to these republicans while he did not to Democrats for whatever reason. Clinets of Abrhamoff, not him but some people he represents, gave $ to Democrats and republicans. You know how fickle contribution laws are, and there is a huge distinction. Clients of his gave money to politicians. So what? He directly gave $ to republicans while his clients gave $ to who they wanted. There is a huge difference. Simply put, nobody is questioning the $ that clients of his gave, they are questioning the checks with Abrhamoffs name on them. No Dem has recieved one of those checks, while plenty of Republicans have.
dbchandler1 said:
4. Indicted congressman? Are there any that havent been? havent like 80 something of them been arrested previously? but seriously I dont think you can really use that as a valid point unless theres a conviction. It makes a difference.
That's fair. We'll wait and see what happens.
dbchandler1 said:
5. Nation building? The same people who complain about this, were the ones that were saying we were just there to take their oil. Have we gotten around to taking that yet, we should get that in gear so i can stop paying 2.30 a gallon. but seriously The Iraqis are better off, Americans end up helping another country maybe climb out of the dark ages and the only thing that i really dont like about the whole thing is the fact that i am paying for it.
Honestly, I could care less about what others say. Bush is not a bad guy. He is by no definition a racist, Kanye was wrong and is a loser, and the way he was treated at King's funeral was disgusting, and he was man enough to be a gentleman about it. I don't care who you are or what issues you have, you do not disrespect a sitting president like that especially at a venue such as a funeral. Had he left of stuck up for himself, they would have cried foul. He could not defend himself and he has every right to do that. He had every right and reason to walk out, but he was man enough to take it, and that in itself says great volumes about is character. I would have walked down, shook the King children's hand and thanked them, then headed for AF1.
I personally didn't care for Saddam and yes, he needed to go. He was a horrible person. Fine. DOn't lie and make things up about why we are going over there. I do not think removing him from office was worth 2000 US soliders losing their lives for. Saddam did not provoke us, he had no weapons, and there was a more diplomatic way to remove him. Now that the damage is done, these losers saying we need to leave are just as bad as Bush for lying. He told flat out lies and when Clinton did it, most of these pilots on here said he should be removed from office. Bush might have believe he had the weapons and lied based on that. OK, fine, but when Clinton said O#al sex is not sex (definition of is is), which I agree, he believe that to be true, so what is the difference aside from the fact that no soilders got killed because BC got his duck sicked. If I get head from some chick and someone says did you have sex with her, I'd say no, and all of you would too!! There is such a double standard.
dbchandler1 said:
6. Haliburton contracts? they built many of the facities in the 80's that they are rebuilding now, they are the unchallenged leaders in experience, equiptment, and know-how when it comes to rebulding infastructures, so if you want others to bid on the contract you have to first find someone to compete with them, and nobody reallly does. I will agree that the money going to the contracts should be managed better, but thats just government in general not really a righ-left argument.
Agreed. My point was that other administrations, Repblican or otherwise, have not engaged in this type of non-bidding. I agree, nobody is better for what they do than Halliburton, but the rules are the rules, so lets do it right, and there will be no issues later on down the road.
Thanks again for writing something worth reading.
) I have also heard the term mentioned in context of slaving away in the office, kitchen, school, etc or being treated as a slave - most teenagers in referring to how their parents treat them. By the way, and for the record, according to recent news broadcasts (San Diego area), white slavery is alive and well - in the form of abduction for prostitution. (Yet another aeronautical connection - PFT anyone?)
TC
uke
I know this smiley is the wrong "end", but you guys know what I mean.) I don't know what I liked better - getting to fly airplanes that had single-point fueling or "single-point" potty dumping. 
Will these private owners ever realize that they bought an airplane and not a Uhaul?
