[drboom]

[quote=luchabee]Liberal policies are predicated on the idea that American businesses are what they once were, but with globalism, we really don’t have much anymore. So, like GM and California, liberals have killed our competitiveness and the nation as a whole is next. In sum, globalism would have turn us into England inevitably (no significant manufacturing base, etc.), but liberalism helped to get us there a whole lot quicker.[/quote]

Laff.

Clinton left his knee pads in the White House along with specific instructions on how the Chinese like it best. Bush strapped ’em on and went to work. U.S. Corporate interests provided the music and breath mints, as always. Obama has already sent half (seemingly) of his cabinet to China, and I don’t think they were there to see the Great Wall. If you need help connecting the dots, look at the historical trade deficit numbers and which U.S. corporations profit from a cheap labor pool.

There is no discernable difference between the world trade policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations–“conservative” vs. “liberal” just doesn’t enter into it. Follow the money.

[drboom]

[quote=luchabee]Liberal policies are predicated on the idea that American businesses are what they once were, but with globalism, we really don’t have much anymore. So, like GM and California, liberals have killed our competitiveness and the nation as a whole is next. In sum, globalism would have turn us into England inevitably (no significant manufacturing base, etc.), but liberalism helped to get us there a whole lot quicker.[/quote]

Laff.

Clinton left his knee pads in the White House along with specific instructions on how the Chinese like it best. Bush strapped ’em on and went to work. U.S. Corporate interests provided the music and breath mints, as always. Obama has already sent half (seemingly) of his cabinet to China, and I don’t think they were there to see the Great Wall. If you need help connecting the dots, look at the historical trade deficit numbers and which U.S. corporations profit from a cheap labor pool.

There is no discernable difference between the world trade policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations–“conservative” vs. “liberal” just doesn’t enter into it. Follow the money.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.[/quote]

As an unaffiliated voter, I wasn’t allowed to. 🙁

[quote]Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit (emphasis added) to be something over 1 trillion.[/quote]

No it didn’t show the “deficit”, look more closely. Those aren’t the “deficit” numbers put out to sucker the press and the rest of us. No, they are the bottom line numbers of where the national debt stood at the end of each fiscal year.

[quote]But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.[/quote]

This is getting a little frustrating. Try reading the huge text at the top of the page:

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2008

[quote]But your site[/quote]

Dude, it’s the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s site, not mine.

[quote]did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.[/quote]

To repeat: that’s a bogus number that gets manipulated every which way to suit political needs. It includes every dime the government takes in, including stuff that should NOT be on the general fund books.

[quote]Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.[/quote]

But who is the biggest spender? To repeat: Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D benefits dwarf anything else going on right now. Also recall that Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and other rat holes were the targets of Hank’s famous bazooka, and Bush let him fire it. It’s not like Obama can walk away from those and other follies.

Having said that, I think Obama is listening to a bunch of misguided Keynesians and I really don’t like the hit GM’s bondholders took without due process, among other things, so don’t think I’m drinking the Kool-Aid.

Lastly, are you really a professor of economics?

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.[/quote]

As an unaffiliated voter, I wasn’t allowed to. 🙁

[quote]Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit (emphasis added) to be something over 1 trillion.[/quote]

No it didn’t show the “deficit”, look more closely. Those aren’t the “deficit” numbers put out to sucker the press and the rest of us. No, they are the bottom line numbers of where the national debt stood at the end of each fiscal year.

[quote]But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.[/quote]

This is getting a little frustrating. Try reading the huge text at the top of the page:

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2008

[quote]But your site[/quote]

Dude, it’s the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s site, not mine.

[quote]did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.[/quote]

To repeat: that’s a bogus number that gets manipulated every which way to suit political needs. It includes every dime the government takes in, including stuff that should NOT be on the general fund books.

[quote]Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.[/quote]

But who is the biggest spender? To repeat: Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D benefits dwarf anything else going on right now. Also recall that Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and other rat holes were the targets of Hank’s famous bazooka, and Bush let him fire it. It’s not like Obama can walk away from those and other follies.

Having said that, I think Obama is listening to a bunch of misguided Keynesians and I really don’t like the hit GM’s bondholders took without due process, among other things, so don’t think I’m drinking the Kool-Aid.

Lastly, are you really a professor of economics?

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.[/quote]

As an unaffiliated voter, I wasn’t allowed to. 🙁

[quote]Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit (emphasis added) to be something over 1 trillion.[/quote]

No it didn’t show the “deficit”, look more closely. Those aren’t the “deficit” numbers put out to sucker the press and the rest of us. No, they are the bottom line numbers of where the national debt stood at the end of each fiscal year.

[quote]But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.[/quote]

This is getting a little frustrating. Try reading the huge text at the top of the page:

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2008

[quote]But your site[/quote]

Dude, it’s the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s site, not mine.

[quote]did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.[/quote]

To repeat: that’s a bogus number that gets manipulated every which way to suit political needs. It includes every dime the government takes in, including stuff that should NOT be on the general fund books.

[quote]Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.[/quote]

But who is the biggest spender? To repeat: Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D benefits dwarf anything else going on right now. Also recall that Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and other rat holes were the targets of Hank’s famous bazooka, and Bush let him fire it. It’s not like Obama can walk away from those and other follies.

Having said that, I think Obama is listening to a bunch of misguided Keynesians and I really don’t like the hit GM’s bondholders took without due process, among other things, so don’t think I’m drinking the Kool-Aid.

Lastly, are you really a professor of economics?

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.[/quote]

As an unaffiliated voter, I wasn’t allowed to. 🙁

[quote]Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit (emphasis added) to be something over 1 trillion.[/quote]

No it didn’t show the “deficit”, look more closely. Those aren’t the “deficit” numbers put out to sucker the press and the rest of us. No, they are the bottom line numbers of where the national debt stood at the end of each fiscal year.

[quote]But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.[/quote]

This is getting a little frustrating. Try reading the huge text at the top of the page:

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2008

[quote]But your site[/quote]

Dude, it’s the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s site, not mine.

[quote]did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.[/quote]

To repeat: that’s a bogus number that gets manipulated every which way to suit political needs. It includes every dime the government takes in, including stuff that should NOT be on the general fund books.

[quote]Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.[/quote]

But who is the biggest spender? To repeat: Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D benefits dwarf anything else going on right now. Also recall that Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and other rat holes were the targets of Hank’s famous bazooka, and Bush let him fire it. It’s not like Obama can walk away from those and other follies.

Having said that, I think Obama is listening to a bunch of misguided Keynesians and I really don’t like the hit GM’s bondholders took without due process, among other things, so don’t think I’m drinking the Kool-Aid.

Lastly, are you really a professor of economics?

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.[/quote]

As an unaffiliated voter, I wasn’t allowed to. 🙁

[quote]Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit (emphasis added) to be something over 1 trillion.[/quote]

No it didn’t show the “deficit”, look more closely. Those aren’t the “deficit” numbers put out to sucker the press and the rest of us. No, they are the bottom line numbers of where the national debt stood at the end of each fiscal year.

[quote]But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.[/quote]

This is getting a little frustrating. Try reading the huge text at the top of the page:

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2008

[quote]But your site[/quote]

Dude, it’s the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s site, not mine.

[quote]did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.[/quote]

To repeat: that’s a bogus number that gets manipulated every which way to suit political needs. It includes every dime the government takes in, including stuff that should NOT be on the general fund books.

[quote]Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.[/quote]

But who is the biggest spender? To repeat: Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D benefits dwarf anything else going on right now. Also recall that Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and other rat holes were the targets of Hank’s famous bazooka, and Bush let him fire it. It’s not like Obama can walk away from those and other follies.

Having said that, I think Obama is listening to a bunch of misguided Keynesians and I really don’t like the hit GM’s bondholders took without due process, among other things, so don’t think I’m drinking the Kool-Aid.

Lastly, are you really a professor of economics?

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]I believe that He was rated on the F-103. The Alabama National Guard flew the F-106. That is why he did not fly with the ANG although he was assigned to them. I could be wrong about that. I could ask my father again. So don’t quote me.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my post a little earlier where I pointed out the XF-103 was a cancelled experimental program that never made it past the mockup stage in the 1950s.

[quote]I saw a Military Channel deal on Cunningham. He risked his life to save another pilot. This guy is a true hero.[/quote]

A hero in his day, without a doubt. But he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and flushed it all down the drain.

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]I believe that He was rated on the F-103. The Alabama National Guard flew the F-106. That is why he did not fly with the ANG although he was assigned to them. I could be wrong about that. I could ask my father again. So don’t quote me.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my post a little earlier where I pointed out the XF-103 was a cancelled experimental program that never made it past the mockup stage in the 1950s.

[quote]I saw a Military Channel deal on Cunningham. He risked his life to save another pilot. This guy is a true hero.[/quote]

A hero in his day, without a doubt. But he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and flushed it all down the drain.

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]I believe that He was rated on the F-103. The Alabama National Guard flew the F-106. That is why he did not fly with the ANG although he was assigned to them. I could be wrong about that. I could ask my father again. So don’t quote me.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my post a little earlier where I pointed out the XF-103 was a cancelled experimental program that never made it past the mockup stage in the 1950s.

[quote]I saw a Military Channel deal on Cunningham. He risked his life to save another pilot. This guy is a true hero.[/quote]

A hero in his day, without a doubt. But he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and flushed it all down the drain.

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]I believe that He was rated on the F-103. The Alabama National Guard flew the F-106. That is why he did not fly with the ANG although he was assigned to them. I could be wrong about that. I could ask my father again. So don’t quote me.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my post a little earlier where I pointed out the XF-103 was a cancelled experimental program that never made it past the mockup stage in the 1950s.

[quote]I saw a Military Channel deal on Cunningham. He risked his life to save another pilot. This guy is a true hero.[/quote]

A hero in his day, without a doubt. But he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and flushed it all down the drain.

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]I believe that He was rated on the F-103. The Alabama National Guard flew the F-106. That is why he did not fly with the ANG although he was assigned to them. I could be wrong about that. I could ask my father again. So don’t quote me.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my post a little earlier where I pointed out the XF-103 was a cancelled experimental program that never made it past the mockup stage in the 1950s.

[quote]I saw a Military Channel deal on Cunningham. He risked his life to save another pilot. This guy is a true hero.[/quote]

A hero in his day, without a doubt. But he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and flushed it all down the drain.

[drboom]

Good post, scaredycat, but why do you think a 250 is “slow”? Mustang GT owners get a woody just thinking about their cars’ 5.2 second 0-60. That’s just a touch quicker than my Ninja 250.

And Casca … the bike is supposed to stay rubber side down; I dunno why you emphasize the ease of picking it up. Maybe you broke your sidestand and just park it on its side? Kind of a shame to tear up such a nice bike. Oh, and my limey bike will smoke your tubby Kraut Kruiser (same power and torque, almost 250 lbs. lighter, do the math) … but my 250 is twice as fun once you get off the superslab. I don’t think it would be much fun herding a bovine 750 lb. top heavy K bike (K1200LT, I assume? LT = Light Truck) up the south side of Palomar, but to each their own.

[drboom]

Good post, scaredycat, but why do you think a 250 is “slow”? Mustang GT owners get a woody just thinking about their cars’ 5.2 second 0-60. That’s just a touch quicker than my Ninja 250.

And Casca … the bike is supposed to stay rubber side down; I dunno why you emphasize the ease of picking it up. Maybe you broke your sidestand and just park it on its side? Kind of a shame to tear up such a nice bike. Oh, and my limey bike will smoke your tubby Kraut Kruiser (same power and torque, almost 250 lbs. lighter, do the math) … but my 250 is twice as fun once you get off the superslab. I don’t think it would be much fun herding a bovine 750 lb. top heavy K bike (K1200LT, I assume? LT = Light Truck) up the south side of Palomar, but to each their own.

[drboom]

Good post, scaredycat, but why do you think a 250 is “slow”? Mustang GT owners get a woody just thinking about their cars’ 5.2 second 0-60. That’s just a touch quicker than my Ninja 250.

And Casca … the bike is supposed to stay rubber side down; I dunno why you emphasize the ease of picking it up. Maybe you broke your sidestand and just park it on its side? Kind of a shame to tear up such a nice bike. Oh, and my limey bike will smoke your tubby Kraut Kruiser (same power and torque, almost 250 lbs. lighter, do the math) … but my 250 is twice as fun once you get off the superslab. I don’t think it would be much fun herding a bovine 750 lb. top heavy K bike (K1200LT, I assume? LT = Light Truck) up the south side of Palomar, but to each their own.

[Author]

Posts