![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 24, 9:41 am, J a c k wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you started reading USENET? Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his Presidency. Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer. And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON. Jack Truman was an artillery officer, yes, he was not a micro-manager. G. Washington, was, as I have heard, not a micro-manager, perhaps not even a manager. He had Hamilton for that. Hamilton Jordan said it best about the Carter presidency before it had even started, "If Cyrus Vance is the Secretary of State, we have lost." Cyrus Vance was the SecState. Carter wanted everything to be on his desk and signed off on before it was implemented. There was a reason for that: "A few reform-minded Democrats and intellectuals were starting to rethink the premises of big government liberalism, to wonder if there might be less expensive and bureaucratic--and more effective--means to traditional liberal ends. Carter was inclined to agree with them. But such thinking was anathema to the party's liberal leaders and most powerful interest groups, and they were positioned to stop it. When Carter took over as president, the nation's most pressing--and consuming--problems were economic. Growth and worker productivity were low, unemployment and federal deficits were high and rising, and, by midway through the president's term, inflation and interest rates were compounding at more than 10 percent annually. Carter's plan was to balance the budget, slashing spending enough to also provide for a $15 billion tax cut which would act as an economic spur. Congress rejected the package, insisting instead on an economic stimulus package (which Carter reluctantly signed) consisting of $15 billion for public works projects, urban aid, and education, the kind of program that reeked of 1933. This pattern was repeated throughout Carter's term, as unions fought the president's calls for voluntary wage controls to combat inflation, and Congress resisted Carter's repeated attempts to balance the federal budget. The president proposed a budget for 1980 designed to restore fiscal austerity and cut spending to keep the deficit for that year under $30 billion. Congress insisted on restoring the cuts, and by the end of the process, the budget was more than $60 billion in the red. The second great challenge the Democrats faced was an OPEC-induced surge in energy prices. Carter came in with some good and some bad ideas about how to alleviate the energy crisis. Democrats in Congress rebuffed the president's best plan--Carter's attempt to lift the price controls Richard Nixon had imposed on domestic energy. But congressional Democrats eagerly adopted his bad ideas, including the creation of the Department of Energy, which would become perhaps the most dysfunctional agency in Washington. House Speaker Tip O'Neill set up a task force to speed along passage of the authorizing bill, getting the agency running in a matter of months. Congress happily signed on in 1980 when Carter asked it to set up the Synthetic Fuels Corporation. The program ultimately spent $88 billion subsidizing American oil and gas companies to try to extract petroleum out of oil shale, an enterprise only slightly more cost-effective than trying to wring water from a stone. The SynFuels concept dispensed a lot of taxpayer money to a lot of Democratic interest groups but did nothing to solve the energy crisis." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ace-wells.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S. Except Big spending Lib programs Generally mean Big Government rather the private enterprise. Thus more money to the rat holes of midnight Basketball, Head start, & God only knows what program they come up with for this housing crisis. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tiger" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S. Except Big spending Lib programs Generally mean Big Government rather the private enterprise. Thus more money to the rat holes of midnight Basketball, Head start, & God only knows what program they come up with for this housing crisis. the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans. the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans. the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious. You forgot to take off your tinfoil hat long enough to insist 9/11 and the security concerns since was a right wing conspiracy... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Please...EITHER of the candidates on that side is a nightmare.
But the lib media loves them and lemmings will follow anything... expect to see a lot more of this... http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives...OffColor-X.gif |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Translation: "The gravy boat may be sailing."
Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 7:18 pm, Dan wrote:
Translation: "The gravy boat may be sailing." Dan Let them learn to repair/rebuild bridges and highways. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
2007 Defense Budget: Changes in Aircraft Programs. | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 6th 06 06:33 PM |