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

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

I think it was the Club of Rome in '68 that made those assertions on
"out of oil." Of course it heartily embraced by the Carter and the GA
Mafia.

The "double nickle" comes from the Nixon Administration. As a
practical matter it IS the quickest and and easiest way to increase
fleet milage. I pull a big horse trailer and if I slow down from 70
mph to 64 mph I get an almost 20% increase in milage.

Carter never understood The Bully Pulpit. He was an honorable man who
thought all other men were honorable, too. He was a man of his word
and thinks all others are, too. Witness his recent contacts and
assertions about Hamas.

He also pulled the rug out from under the Shah and failed to do
anyting to fill the resulting power vacuum, which resulted in the rise
of the Ayatollah Khomeni (sp) and the release of large scale relgious
fundamentalism fueled by petrodollars. He's still an honest and
honorable man. He still hasn't figured out that very few others are.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:40:21 -0500, J a c k
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:


...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter]
and start looking things up.


Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in
addition to his being a Democrat.

Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must
have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective
with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally
looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah
complex.

You seem jealous.


Peter Skelton

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...

On Apr 24, 3:16 pm, eyeball wrote:
the government has never been bigger than it is now under the republicans.
the way you wingnut fools can go on about big government and government
spendings when its you who are pushing the first and benefiting from
the later while decrying both is as hinesquaters says hilarious.

You forgot to take off your tinfoil hat long enough to insist 9/11 and
the security concerns since was a right wing conspiracy...

No, but falling asleep on the watch and using security as a shield
against illegal activity might fall into that category. Plus the
obvious fascination with torture even before any al Qaeda prisoners
were available.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

"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.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Snip:
And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...

One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.

...but executed poorly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros.


you mean like bush,cheney and rice?????????
some "pros"

and your hero reagan was king of the "cut and runners" unlike you present
days wingnut fools , the traitor reagan was not blinded by ideaology

On Apr 24, 3:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" barked:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...g_moonbat3.jpg

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
Dan ha scritto:
Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Well, with any change in the tax codes, people with large stakes of
sedentary investments are encouraged to shift them around. basically, a
tax cut on investments acts as a moratorium/amnesty: we'll forgive you
if you pay us. If rates are 50% and you have $1 million in profits, you
might be enticed to sell those assets if you lower the rate to 25% (for
an almost instantaneous gain of 25% on those assets).

Conversely, if rates are low, and you hold a gain, if the government
raises rates, then you are enticed to sell NOW to lock in the lower rate.

Such activities create a bunch of secondary profits (markets, brokers,
managers who manage the "new" money), so it looks, temporarily, that the
economy has grown when all that was done was to pass paper around. The
government take from this new activity is very short term, but the
tax-cutters point to it as proof that lowering taxes generates
additional revenue (failing to mention that the increases are temporary,
at best).

Please to note that the "spending orgy by the congress" was, in fact,
not an increase in spending independent from the tax cuts, but was a
part of them. Note also that Reagan never submitted a budget that was
ever even close to what was passed in Congress - Congressional budgets
were always WAY lower than Reagan wanted. Note also that Reagan gets
credit for the tax cuts (passed by Congress) but no blame for the
spending, which increases were mostly his bloated military boondoggles,
which EVEN the Pentagon stated openly were obscenely more than they
needed or wanted...

Acolytes of St. Ronnie are an interesting breed... Like other religious
fanatics, they ignore the facts to maintain their belief in the
canonical infallibility of their cult leader.

Dan

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
Dan ha scritto:
Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Reagan spent borrowed money.

Andrew Swallow

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
take the blame.

If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
major revolutions in the oil patch...

D'oh!

Dan

You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

How could I forget something that exists only in your fervid
imagination?

If you are going to tell a lie, at least it should make sense and be
internally consistent...

Dan