United ready to raise white flag

[sgu]

Is United ready to raise white flag

Is Glenn showing his hand by encouraging lawmakers to consolidate the industry because UAL can no longer compete? This cannot be a good sign to UAL employees!!!

Associated Press
United Calls on U.S. to Pursue Mergers
Thursday September 16, 12:14 pm ET
United Airlines Calls on U.S. to Pursue European Union-Style Mergers

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The head of United Airlines Thursday said the United States must follow the European Union example of pursuing airline mergers to revive the ailing industry.

Chief Executive Glenn Tilton said EU deals such as the recent tie-up of France's Air France and Dutch carrier KLM are constructive for the industry and eliminate "unnecessary inefficiency."


U.S. obstacles to airline mergers -- such as taxes and fees -- keep the industry from "competing as real companies compete," preventing it from addressing problems of excess capacity, he said.

United Airlines must face down pressure from labor interests to meets its goal of cutting costs by $655 million, Tilton told aviation industrialists.

That amount "is indeed the number we have targeted, and to the extent it results in fewer jobs, certainly there are going to be more job cuts," he said.

UAL Corp., the Chicago-based parent of United, has been operating in bankruptcy court protection since late 2002.

 

[D-Bo]

Is Glenn showing his hand by encouraging lawmakers to consolidate the industry because UAL can no loger compete? This cannot be a good sign to UAL employees!!!

Associated Press
United Calls on U.S. to Pursue Mergers
Thursday September 16, 12:14 pm ET
United Airlines Calls on U.S. to Pursue European Union-Style Mergers

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The head of United Airlines Thursday said the United States must follow the European Union example of pursuing airline mergers to revive the ailing industry.

Chief Executive Glenn Tilton said EU deals such as the recent tie-up of France's Air France and Dutch carrier KLM are constructive for the industry and eliminate "unnecessary inefficiency."


U.S. obstacles to airline mergers -- such as taxes and fees -- keep the industry from "competing as real companies compete," preventing it from addressing problems of excess capacity, he said.

United Airlines must face down pressure from labor interests to meets its goal of cutting costs by $655 million, Tilton told aviation industrialists.

That amount "is indeed the number we have targeted, and to the extent it results in fewer jobs, certainly there are going to be more job cuts," he said.

UAL Corp., the Chicago-based parent of United, has been operating in bankruptcy court protection since late 2002.

sgu,

Tilton may be showing his hand but not the hand that your eluding to. Also, UAL is in a better position than most folks think right now.

D-Bo

 

[merikeyegro]

I'd be in great shape, too, if the gov't let me dump $5.4 billion in pensions. I can't dump my credit-card debt on anyone, so why should this be the case?

Another case of the little guy getting screwed by the big guy with help from Uncle Sam. Sad that a fund - the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation - set up to save the little guy's money turns out to be the outfit that props up companies that make lousy decisions.

This is a case of socialism at its worst - gov't protection of private business. In other words, this is a bailout. The PBGC should not exist in order to force companies like UAL to fund their pension banks. If they squander the money, you force an asset sale in court to pay for them. In the end, the retirees don't get squat anyway. At least then you don't reinforce bad behavior on the part of the companies and fleece the taxpayers for the pensions. True Republicans would push to have this fund killed. Of course, Congress isn't controlled by true Republicans. Just posers that like power.

FDR might have been a hero of his time, but we're paying for this crap now.

 

[merikeyegro]

How might I go about this without a) going bankrupt or b) killing my credit? I suppose that UAL has done both. However, when the gov't picks up the tab for it, I have a serious issue with that. After all, that's MY money that bails them out.

 

[TreeTopFlyr]

"True Republicans would push to have this fund killed. Of course, Congress isn't controlled by true Republicans. Just posers that like power.

FDR might have been a hero of his time, but we're paying for this crap now."


Well said, I think the same thing. The fiscal policy of the republicans right now are very similiar to the demoncats, I mean democrats. I support much of Bush's agenda for this country, but man, he needs to stop spending like a democrat.

FDR is responsible for much of our problems right now. I like to say (lightly) he is the father of socialism in this country.

 

[merikeyegro]

Well said, I think the same thing. The fiscal policy of the republicans right now are very similiar to the demoncats, I mean democrats. I support much of Bush's agenda for this country, but man, he needs to stop spending like a democrat.

FDR is responsible for much of our problems right now. I like to say (lightly) he is the father of socialism in this country.

No, I agree with you 100%. I'm a registered Dem, but I favor them more on the social side of things - today, not 40 years ago. I simply just hate Bush and think that Kerry won't bankrupt the country, piss off our allies (I mean, we really do need friends in this world to fight terrorism - we can't do it all ourselves - plus, there is more to int'l relations than terrorism), make me pay a value-added tax every time I buy a sub sandwich while Warren Buffett lives tax-free, force me to look at a homosexual as a second-class citizen, force my librarian to turn over my book-rental records, cause me to pay over $300 per month in healthcare premiums, etc.

I consider myself nearly a Libertarian on social issues. On other things, I'm a moderate. I believe that military interventionism for lousy reasons (Iraq) is not conservative. How about a little defense, not offense? I believe that giveaways to businesses are not conservative, as this is gov't support for business. I believe that the ATSB is airline protection, thus not conservative. I believe that supporting a social agenda which specifically denies certain people the right to pursue happiness is not conservative. I believe that the USA PATRIOT Act is a needless intrusion into the privacy of all Americans...and not at all conservative.

The GOP has lost its way when it comes to their Jeffersonian roots - committed to strict Constitutional interpretation, minimal government, etc. I can't support it in its current form. I was a registered Republican in 1996 and again in 2000. I switched this year because Bush is truly a fiscal and military liberal and a social conservative - the worst kind. I'm the other way around.

That being said, I believe that, sadly, Dems are going to be the ones pushing for a balanced budget and military isolationism. My how times have changed.

That being said, FDR was a hero of his day. He put us, however, in this bind. Not a good idea. He was a socialist through and through. Maybe I'd think differently in 1933. Today, that's my stance...

 

[100LL... Again!]

The dems want a balanced budget? Haha.

Bill Clinton promised tax cuts. We all know how that went over.

That line will fool no one but those who are already fooled.

 

[d.fitz]

"...cause me to pay over $300 per month in healthcare premiums..."

Yeah, its a real b!tch to have to pay $300 per month for the best health care in the world. Maybe we can do like Canada and have free health care. That won't bankrupt our country.

 

[merikeyegro]

The dems want a balanced budget? Haha.

Compared to Bush, who wants to cut the deficit in HALF in FIVE YEARS, has run up over $1 trillion in debt, and has reversed the economic progress we made in the 1990s. Sorry, but your guy failed the test. Just because you say Kerry doesn't want to balance the budget doesn't mean that Bush will. I find it funny that you call yourself a Republican yet tout a man who spends money like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors out there). It isn't good enough to say, "yeah, Bush spends money like crazy while cutting taxes and just borrowing his way to bigger government, but that Kerry guy talks about raising someone else's taxes to help balance the budget in a shorter period. Those big-spending Dems..." It doesn't really hold up. Tell your free-spending GOoPers to pipe down and quit giving away my money. At least Dems don't run on a fiscal restraint ticket. Republicans do but then spend anyway. You may not like a tax-and-spend liberal taking your money, but at least that liberal tells you that he's going to tax you and spend your money. The Republicans today say they are going to cut taxes and reduce the size of the gov't, then proceed to cut taxes and INCREASE the size of the gov't. Where I come from they call that "bait and switch." It isn't good enough to say "liberals promise to take everyone's money and do; Republicans promise not to but find other ways to fleece everyone. I'm with the Republicans." Vote how you'd like, but you're not exactly voting for a conservative if you pull the lever for Bush.

Yeah, its a real b!tch to have to pay $300 per month for the best health care in the world. Maybe we can do like Canada and have free health care. That won't bankrupt our country.

Um, Canada doesn't have free health care. They get taxed like hell for it. From what I understand in the Canadian press, the system ain't all that great anyway. There is a lot of gray area between totally public and totally private health care. Canada's doesn't work. Ours is starting to malfunction. Yes, it's the best health care in the world. I don't want the gov't providing my health care. I don't see anyone proposing that either (if you don't believe me, go to www.johnkerry.com and look at his health care agenda). God knows that's not a good idea. In any case, look at your deductions for health care over the last 5 years. Tell me if they've gone down. My guess is that they have not. Good chance they've increased somewhere between 10-20%. When insurance gets expensive, the bottom end gets cut, leaving those that can't afford it with no insurance and the remaining people that can afford it to pay higher premiums to cover the same costs. The problem is that most health care is provided by employers. When employers need to cut costs, what do they do? Get rid of health care or institute higher premiums. They have no incentive to provide it, so many of the new jobs do not provide for it. Kerry wants to give a tax BREAK to businesses that provide health care. Think the Republicans will pass one? I'd guess not. That's a tax break they won't give.

While you're reading about Kerry's health plan, take a break to look at your paychecks over the past three years and see if you got a "tax cut" from Bush. I actually did this. I started work in January of 2001 - Bush's inauguration - and put my numbers into Excel in June of this year. I took one paycheck every 2 months or so for about 30 months and plotted the numbers. My marginal federal tax rate varied between 9.3% and 10.6% for the entire time. AT NO POINT DID IT MARKEDLY DROP. As a matter of fact, it almost looked like a sine wave. So, by this I could conclude that I did not benefit from the THREE Bush tax cuts. There's a good chance that you didn't, either. So, you're voting for someone who gives the breaks to someone that makes a lot more than you.

There's a lot at stake in this election. More than just chest-puffing and tough words. More than just painstaking repetition - "the tax cuts are working...the tax cuts are working...the tax cuts are working...the tax cuts are working...the tax cuts are working..."

End rant.

 

[FN FAL]

"...cause me to pay over $300 per month in healthcare premiums..."

Yeah, its a real b!tch to have to pay $300 per month for the best health care in the world. Maybe we can do like Canada and have free health care. That won't bankrupt our country.

A close friend of mine's dad is a recently retired NWA whale and airbus pilot. He's from Canada and says the Canadian healthcare system is FUBAR!

Although I think the thread started out with discussing UAL and the recent press release, I will say that the way that employer benefit plans are going, there is going to have to be some government participation in the healthcare industry, regardless of Democrat or Republican politics.

My brother is an employer of a few people and he tells me that his healthcare costs have gone up dramatically since 9/11 and in general have doubled every three years.

My plan from work is o.k. but it's not the best. My wife works at a hospital full time and their plan is pretty much paid by the employee...it sucks worse than suck.

I think as the health insurance prices reach the point that employers cannot afford it, it will be dumped on the individual. Many will go without.

I think that reforms in malpractice insurance and civil tort court may be a place to start, but if you think that socialized medicine is the way to go, you may find yourself flying to Europe or Asia to get that heart transplant when you need it, rather than waiting 10 years like they do in Canada.

 

[exphojump]

Presidents are not that powerfull.

Newt Gingrich with the Contract with America was powerfull, IMO. Too bad they squandered the balance budget amendment and true campaign finance reform.

Congress is where it begins.

Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA): Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This act amended both the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The BEA provided for new budget targets, sequestration procedures, pay-as-you-go procedures, credit reform, and various other changes. The discretionary spending caps and the pay-as-you-go process were extended through 1998 by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. See discretionary spending caps and pay-as-you-go.


pay-as-you-go (PAYGO): A procedure required in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to ensure that, for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, legislation affecting direct spending and receipts did not increase the deficit. The pay-as-you-go process was extended through fiscal year 1998 by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Pay-as-you-go is enforced through Congressional rules and sequestration procedures.

PAYGO was extended until 2001 then allowed to expire. Greenspan speaking to the idiots in Congress basically said this is what allowed us to start paying down our debt.

Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of letting this mechanism sunset.

 

[AvroJockey]

All Bark, No Bite!!!

"...cause me to pay over $300 per month in healthcare premiums"

And your increased health care premiums have nothing to do with our liberally litigious society? John Edwards made his so-called rages-to-riches move by suing Obstetricians, because there was faulty science out there claiming CP was linked to the delivery OB. He set the legal precedent for every other personal injury lawyer to follow suit (no pun intended). It’s not a coincidence that the majority of personal political contributions to the Kerry campaign are from lawyers. A friend of mine won’t practice medicine in his home state, because his malpractice insurance would be in the high six figures. Fortunately Appleton, WI gets his talent because of this, and as a result, is one of the most highly sought after OB/Gyn Docs.

Additionally, your fiscal policies claim is lacking essence; I challenge you to put some facts in your posts. For example, in real terms (adjusted for inflation, based on the consumer price index) the net public debt (the portion of the national debt that really matters) is lower now then it was when Clinton ran for reelection. There was a 14% increase in the national debt while inflation over the same period was 17%.

So you say, “The budget deficit is larger than it ever was in history!” Well this media sensationalization also fails to incorporate inflation. Regardless, there is still a deficit. But how does one implement expansionary fiscal policy, to recover from a recession, without a budget deficit? When you find this out, PM me, and we can start are own form of government together, and win the next general election.

Here’s another example of using fact to back up an opinion. If one goes to the following link you can see that the aforementioned recession was inherited from the previous administration. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDPC1.txt There are several key factors indicate the start of a recession, and one of them is a decrease in real GDP. As one can see, over the past 4.5 years there was only three quarters where real GDP declined, two of which were under the Clinton administration. The Bush administration recognized this, and implemented expansionary fiscal policy in the summer of 2001, by cutting taxes. Government intervention is required in these situations, because the economy is not self-regulating. We learned this from the Great Depression.

BTW, because you’re so concerned about the financial woes of our government, and would like to help them out, you can make a financial contribution to the following address or use the applicable form the next time you file your taxes.

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

Your ability to regurgitate political rhetoric sheds light on your level of intelligence. I would respect you more if you just said I hate Bush because he’s from Texas, and he talks funny.

 

[68pilot]

Avrojockey-
Say it ain't so.
Why did your new contract only contain a 5% raise?

I don't like Bush because he's from Texas, talks funny, and has sh!t for brains.

A pilot voting for Bush is like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

68pilot
"trapped by the pitfalls of sin since 1979"

 

[100LL... Again!]

what an intellectual


may i see your mba from harvard?

 

[ilinipilot]

UA and USAir

sounds to me like UAL is gesturing to merge with UAL

D

 

[ilinipilot]

UA and USAir

seems to me like UAL is gestering to reopen the merger.

D

 

[J32driver]

Sorry for the thread hijack... but I'm gonna agree with AvroJockey on this one.

Bush has his problems, but he is the lesser of two evils in my mind. I feel that he has done an admirable job with this economy. The economy was tanking prior to him taking office, and then 9/11 happened (which I blame on Clinton, but thats another thread). The fact that GW and congress have turned things around in 3 years is testemant enough to his fiscal policy.

As far as Edwards.... In my mind the reason health care is so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed expensive is because of trial lawyers like Edwards. I completely support limits on malpractice lawsuits which should help control the soaring costs of health care. I also don't want government healthcare. Go stand in line at the DMV sometime and tell me how much you like that. Next time you go to Canada, ask a Canadian how they like their healthcare system.

Kerry... I simply look at his voting records and laugh. The only thing I can say about him is he is a TRUE POLITICIAN. He will vote what is good for him at the time. I don't think issues matter to him at all.

As far as the airline industry... I recognize that the dems are more labor friendly than the 'publicans. But like that chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders... if it feeds my country so that my country and people are stronger... then Colonel Sanders it is.

 

[mmmdonut]

As far as Edwards.... In my mind the reason health care is so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed expensive is because of trial lawyers like Edwards. I completely support limits on malpractice lawsuits which should help control the soaring costs of health care.

Oh really? So if a law was passed tomorrow that banned malpractice and similar suits you think you'd quickly see a drop in premiums?

If you believe that, you have a lot to learn. Now that you're used to paying that amount, they have no incentive to lower the rate. It's kind of like road tolls. Even though the road is paid off, everyone knows it's a toll road and so you keep paying.

The premiums would stay the same and they'd find some other excuse to raise them.

Here's an idea: Rather than blaming every possible 3rd party for your taxes/premiums/headaches/etc... why don't you just look directly at the source. Dumping everything on "liberals" or "socialists" or "the neighbor's cat" is exactly what they want you to do. Meanwhile, you still pay the same amount monthly.

 

[scabseeker]

Another Thread Hijack

There is no correlation between medical malpractice caps and lower premimums. Sometimes they go down sometimes up.

It is like the people who say "I hate pro athletes because they make so much money and now I can't afford to take my family to a ballgame." Do you honestly believe that if all the players took 50% paycuts tomorrow the owners would cut ticket prices 50%? Not likely.

 

[J32driver]

I never said anything about prices going down. But I do believe it would slow the rise.

I also didn't say anything about banning lawsuits.... just think that a reasonable limit should be in place.

How much should the lady that dumped the McDonald's coffee on herself really have gotten? I don't think the rediculous lawsuits are any less in the medical world.

Come on people... you gotta do a better job of READING than that.

 

[merikeyegro]

Yeah, I'm sure that people eating 42 pounds of McDonald's per week and having heart attacks has nothing to do with health insurance going up. If you get rid of malpractice lawsuits, you have no incentive for doctors to be careful when they practice medicine. You would then have the opposite effect. Insurance having to pay for the extended medical care necessary due to the malpractice. Like them or not, lawyers and lawsuits are necessary evils. Blame them all you want, until you need a lawyer. I guarantee you'll find the meanest and greediest one you can handle. Just ask a few of the divorcees on this board how that works. Or just wait until Delta airlines fails to maintain the brakes on its catering food truck and it injures you while you preflight. Or wait until your chiropractor, working on your back problems due to your sitting on your @ss all day, causes nerve damage from manipulating too violently. Or wait until your own child goes in for something as simple as a tooth extraction and comes out in a coma because the dentist didn't bother to use the proper anesthesia. Again, you don't know you've got until it's gone. Malpractice caps do not benefit the consumer, but the business. There's a reason Bush pushes for it.

How come Bushies tout the fact that there is less inflation today than ever yet when the debt figures are rolled out, they blame inflation? The debt in September of 1992 (just prior to Clinton being elected) was $4,064,620,655,521.66. That's according to your own beloved Bureau of Public Debt. Today, that number is $7,347,867,800,168.01. Again, according to the same source. Look at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm for proof, since you obviously need it to smack you in the head for you to believe it. That's an increase of $3,283,247,144,646.35 in 12 years. Based on your logic, that means that the US dollar has lost 45% of its value in 12 years. The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Check http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi for an inflation calculator. You'll find that $100 today is worth $77.58 in 1992. That means that the dollar has lost only 22.42% in 12 years - half of the increase in the debt. So, therefore, the debt has increased due to other measures, such as deficit spending. Keep in mind also that an inflated currency actually helps pay down a monetary debt. The debt has the same dollar value regardless of inflation. So, if you simply double the money supply (100% inflation) by printing more greenbacks, you can pay down the debt twice as fast. Very bad idea. You'll inflate the hell out of the economy and kill business everywhere, but foreigners will like your goods and you'll pay down your debt. You and your neighbor will lose your @sses in your stock portfolios, as well as likely lose your jobs. But you'll have less debt.

It's a simple finance lesson that you Bushies seem to fail. After all, Bush graduated from Harvard Business School. You'd think he would be able to educate the rest of us on these realities. He can't. Hell, I just explained it to you. I go to B-school at ERAU.

Next time you challenge me to post facts, you might want to look at a few yourself. I used gov't data to support this. Gov't data supported by your White House and the Exec Branch of gov't. Google is a beautiful thing. Learn it.

It doesn't matter how you dice it. The debt is higher, Bush spends too much money that he doesn't have, and you can't blame Clinton or inflation. Give it up.

Bush = The Excuses President

 

[Juvat]

Geesh

I've never seen a thread so heinously hijacked. Go find the "let's all complain about politics" board guys!

 

[AvroJockey]

Avrojockey-
Say it ain't so.
Why did your new contract only contain a 5% raise?

I don't like Bush because he's from Texas, talks funny, and has sh!t for brains.

A pilot voting for Bush is like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

68pilot
"trapped by the pitfalls of sin since 1979"

Again, unsubstantiated expression. Your dialog only amplifies my point!

BTW - I don’t’ expect politicians to do anything for me, because more than likely they won’t. If I did, I would be a Socialist.

 

[AvroJockey]

You really need to re-read my post!!

Yeah, I'm sure that people eating 42 pounds of McDonald's per week and having heart attacks has nothing to do with health insurance going up. If you get rid of malpractice lawsuits, you have no incentive for doctors to be careful when they practice medicine. You would then have the opposite effect. Insurance having to pay for the extended medical care necessary due to the malpractice. Like them or not, lawyers and lawsuits are necessary evils. Blame them all you want, until you need a lawyer. I guarantee you'll find the meanest and greediest one you can handle. Just ask a few of the divorcees on this board how that works. Or just wait until Delta airlines fails to maintain the brakes on its catering food truck and it injures you while you preflight. Or wait until your chiropractor, working on your back problems due to your sitting on your @ss all day, causes nerve damage from manipulating too violently. Or wait until your own child goes in for something as simple as a tooth extraction and comes out in a coma because the dentist didn't bother to use the proper anesthesia. Again, you don't know you've got until it's gone. Malpractice caps do not benefit the consumer, but the business. There's a reason Bush pushes for it.

How come Bushies tout the fact that there is less inflation today than ever yet when the debt figures are rolled out, they blame inflation? The debt in September of 1992 (just prior to Clinton being elected) was $4,064,620,655,521.66. That's according to your own beloved Bureau of Public Debt. Today, that number is $7,347,867,800,168.01. Again, according to the same source. Look at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm for proof, since you obviously need it to smack you in the head for you to believe it. That's an increase of $3,283,247,144,646.35 in 12 years. Based on your logic, that means that the US dollar has lost 45% of its value in 12 years. The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Check http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi for an inflation calculator. You'll find that $100 today is worth $77.58 in 1992. That means that the dollar has lost only 22.42% in 12 years - half of the increase in the debt. So, therefore, the debt has increased due to other measures, such as deficit spending. Keep in mind also that an inflated currency actually helps pay down a monetary debt. The debt has the same dollar value regardless of inflation. So, if you simply double the money supply (100% inflation) by printing more greenbacks, you can pay down the debt twice as fast. Very bad idea. You'll inflate the hell out of the economy and kill business everywhere, but foreigners will like your goods and you'll pay down your debt. You and your neighbor will lose your @sses in your stock portfolios, as well as likely lose your jobs. But you'll have less debt.

It's a simple finance lesson that you Bushies seem to fail. After all, Bush graduated from Harvard Business School. You'd think he would be able to educate the rest of us on these realities. He can't. Hell, I just explained it to you. I go to B-school at ERAU.

Next time you challenge me to post facts, you might want to look at a few yourself. I used gov't data to support this. Gov't data supported by your White House and the Exec Branch of gov't. Google is a beautiful thing. Learn it.

It doesn't matter how you dice it. The debt is higher, Bush spends too much money that he doesn't have, and you can't blame Clinton or inflation. Give it up.

Bush = The Excuses President

First of all, I never said there wasn’t a place for personal injury lawyers, because there is. My point was that malpractice is mitigating practice. That is, frivolous lawsuits, in certain locale, are preventing good doctors from practicing. In WI, there’s no problem, but in areas, such as Memphis, there is. This must stop! Especially when it’s at our expense.

BTW – that doctor friend of mine is married to a lawyer (family practice), and she holds the same opinion as I.

As far as your financial analysis; you’re completely misguided. Your ignorance is shining. Your public debt figures are correct, however, you failed to subtract intergovernmental holdings, which is money the government owes itself. This figure doesn’t matter when considering the liability of the government, only the debt held by the public matters. When you look at these figures, it paints a slightly different picture. Additionally, your source for “the value of the dollar” is incorrect. The following link will give you the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the past 50 years. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CPIAUCNS.txt CPI is the true measure of inflation. Over the time period you stated (Sept ’92 to present) the CPI rose from 141.1 to 189.5, this is a 34.3% increase. This is far different than the 22% that you claim. Even if one uses your doubtful economic data, and the national debt has increased over YOUR specified time period (I specified numbers when Clinton won reelection in ’96), you still can’t refute the fact that it is due to expansionary fiscal policy. This is fact!!!

 

[AvroJockey]

There is no correlation between medical malpractice caps and lower premimums. Sometimes they go down sometimes up.

It is like the people who say "I hate pro athletes because they make so much money and now I can't afford to take my family to a ballgame." Do you honestly believe that if all the players took 50% paycuts tomorrow the owners would cut ticket prices 50%? Not likely.

Then who pays for medical malpractice awards? I agree with your logic, however, malpractice limitations WILL mitigate increases.

 

[RV7]

7600 Already

 

[TreeTopFlyr]

Sorry for the hijack, may be some one who knows how can move this thread.

"I simply just hate Bush and think that Kerry won't bankrupt the country, piss off our allies (I mean, we really do need friends in this world to fight terrorism - we can't do it all ourselves - plus, there is more to int'l relations than terrorism)."

Bankrupt the country? Yes we are running a deficit, but we did so during the 80's and 90's as well. IMO taking down communism and the Soviet Union was worth it. The budget was balanced at the end of Clinton's party, I mean term. The Republicans forced it to be balanced once they took control of the House and Senate.

As far as allies are concerned we only need allies that agree with us. France and Germany stayed out of Iraq because they were Saddam's largest trading partners.

"cause me to pay over $300 per month in healthcare premiums, etc."

High malpractice insurance costs, the cost to develop and test drugs, and the lack of the English system of law (i.e. Tort reform) are the causes of our high health care costs. My wifes OB just stopped delivering babies because of it. The answer is not going to socialized medicine, Canada's system is broken, Sweden's system is broken. It does not work.

"I believe that military interventionism for lousy reasons (Iraq) is not conservative. How about a little defense, not offense? "

A little defense? Do you remember 9/11? Defense worked great then!!!

What you liberals don't get is that radical islamists don't just hate me because I support Bush. They hate democrats just as much. They hate us because we are a Christian nation. Thay hate us because we have freedom. They hate us because men, women, black, white, chinese, arab, spanish Americans all have equal rights. We can all vote, we can all drive cars, we can all own businesses, we can all have jobs.

The Religion of Peace? I wish the muslims in this country that do not agree with the radical muslims would make themselved heard.

"I believe that giveaways to businesses are not conservative, as this is gov't support for business. I believe that the ATSB is airline protection, thus not conservative."

Mostly agree with you here, although without the initial help after 9/11 I think we could have seen even some of ther stronger carriers really struggle.

"I believe that supporting a social agenda which specifically denies certain people the right to pursue happiness is not conservative."

Every man and woman in this country has the exact same rights. I assume you are speaking to the gay marriage issue. Why should a gay male or female have any special rights? Do you support a Homosexual bill of rights? Why do we have to label things such as HATE CRIMES? These are the same crimes whether thay are commited against men, women, gay, straight, black, white, etc. Are they any more horrific when they are commited against a certain group of people?

"I believe that the USA PATRIOT Act is a needless intrusion into the privacy of all Americans...and not at all conservative."

Name one case where the Patriot Act has been used illegitimately? To my knowledge there have been no substantiated claims.

 

[68pilot]

"Every man and woman in this country has the exact same rights. I assume you are speaking to the gay marriage issue. Why should a gay male or female have any special rights? "

How about the right to marry the person they love?
How about getting partner benefits?
How about the right to visit their significant other in the hospital when they are terminally ill?
How about the right to make end of life descisions for their partner?
I assume these are the rights you are speaking of.
If you think gay people have these rights, you need to educate yourself a little better.

Have a good night all
68pilot