Air Canada pilots get the shaft...
- Thread starter HVYMETALDRVR
- Start date
And your point is what exactly?
I'm pretty sure that the economic environment post WWII is a little different from what we're dealing with now.
For example, the Federal Deficit in Eisenhower's administration exceeded 1% of GDP in only two years of his administration. Obama's lowest percentage thus far has been 8.7%.
Infrastructure investment is a great thing if you can pay for it.
For example, the Federal Deficit in Eisenhower's administration exceeded 1% of GDP in only two years of his administration. Obama's lowest percentage thus far has been 8.7%.
Infrastructure investment is a great thing if you can pay for it.
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Well, some of us chose to look at life with a wider lens.
What your contract looks like is going to be largely irrelevant in a world where mandatory government spending equals all Federal revenue, a condition predicted to occur in 2025 according to the CBO.
The latest Obama add I saw during Olympics coverage has Our Dear Leader promising more of the same: get the rich to pay their fair share so we can pay down the debt.
BAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Kinda hard to pay down a tab that you've added nearly 850 Billion to in the last 8 months.
Our Dear Leader......well isn't that a bit douchey of you to frame your comment like that.
Your source, KPCB......venture capitalists. Also known as ultra-conservative agenda......
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Well, we could easily fund all the infrastructure investment, and MORE, if a certain administration hadn't committed us to a multi-front, decade long foreign war where we shipped TRILLIONS of Dollars overseas.
So, how about you pipe down just a bit.
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Also, it should be noted that when you make ridiculous comments like "Dear Leader" you actually lesson the effect of your position.
Just like those that try to slight ALPA by calling the organization ALPO....when you make foolish points, well, you look like a fool. Try to make a lucent point if you want a chance at being taken seriously.
Just like those that try to slight ALPA by calling the organization ALPO....when you make foolish points, well, you look like a fool. Try to make a lucent point if you want a chance at being taken seriously.
Point taken and my bias is plainly obvious. That said, I'd wager most of his constituency would fail to see the veiled insult and agree with the characterization. Just a guess.Our Dear Leader......well isn't that a bit douchey of you to frame your comment like that.
Um yeah. If I may quote from their website:
Um, yeah. Real arch Conservatives there. They're so Conservative that Al Gore is a partner.
But hey, never mind the 5 lines of fine print detailing the source.
Have you heard me defend Bush lately? That said according to CBO numbers the direct cost of the Iraq war was less than the 2009 stimulus bill:Well, we could easily fund all the infrastructure investment, and MORE, if a certain administration hadn't committed us to a multi-front, decade long foreign war where we shipped TRILLIONS of Dollars overseas.
So, how about you pipe down just a bit.
Full Disclosure: The source is a Fox News Article
Other articles I can dig up put the total costs in the 3 trillion range by the latter part of this decade. Even then, that's only a fraction of the total debt. Sure. Bush added a lot to that number, but BHO added a similar number in half the time.
All that said, the past is past. If we're done dismissing CBO number just because it has Al Gore's conservative KPCB signature on it entitlements are going to swallow the entire federal budget is a very short amount of time. What are we going to do about it moving forward?
genot
Well-Known Member
I wonder how much of the dramatic increase in deficit had to do with Bush's own stimulus plan, which didn't cease to exist the moment Obama took office. Lets be honest with ourselves. A large scale economic plan does not take effect immediately and then cease on a whim. Graphs really aren't helpful in these discussions. They merely serve to manipulate facts and actualities of a circumstance that will take years if not decades to unfold and give the initial impression that the argument presented is correct.
I say again, have you heard me defend Bush lately? A very interesting book some of you might like reading is Glen Beck's "Broke." (cue the hate mail) Really interesting because he takes the left and right both to task on the history of the Federal Debt.
Really? All numbers plotted on an x and y axis do is manipulate facts? People are certainly allowed to draw their own conclusions from a set of facts or data. But decrying facts or data that you don't agree with false simply because you don't like their implications is rather foolish.
All the data presented is straight from Government sources. Since the President himself has assured all of us that this is the most transparent administration ever why are we debating the veracity of Government data?
genot
Well-Known Member
I'll leave you hanging on saying Glen Beck takes the right to task. I'm too busy reading about how the Luftwaffe was barely NAZI.
No graphs aren't helpful. No I don't care who made them. If a president sets policy for a period lasting outside his term you cannot logically argue that the president who inherited that policy is responsible. Lets say you're elected president in 2012. You outlaw gymnastics in 2015 with a ten year ban. You serve 4 years and I get elected for an 8 year term and can't get that ban overturned. We see a graph that will obviously states, gymnastics was doing OK until my term more or less started. We can manipulate the graph to say I'm anti gymnastics. Graphs tell the here and now, not the who impacted what.
Lets try this another way. I'm at a poker table. I leave and next thing I know I'm almost all in thanks to my buddy who is playing my (weak) hand. I'm expected to jump in mid way and make a miracle. In for a penny in for a pound they say. Actually in for 1,557,000,000,000, in for.... well whatever. I either fold and lose 1.5 trillion or I prop up the game and call hoping I don't take the massive loss.
You're essentially using math to show you rolled a slightly smaller snowball than the next guy downhill and claiming its the other guy's fault there were deaths in the avalanche. Believe it or not I work for the government. I'm not exactly impressed with their official numbers.
No graphs aren't helpful. No I don't care who made them. If a president sets policy for a period lasting outside his term you cannot logically argue that the president who inherited that policy is responsible. Lets say you're elected president in 2012. You outlaw gymnastics in 2015 with a ten year ban. You serve 4 years and I get elected for an 8 year term and can't get that ban overturned. We see a graph that will obviously states, gymnastics was doing OK until my term more or less started. We can manipulate the graph to say I'm anti gymnastics. Graphs tell the here and now, not the who impacted what.
Lets try this another way. I'm at a poker table. I leave and next thing I know I'm almost all in thanks to my buddy who is playing my (weak) hand. I'm expected to jump in mid way and make a miracle. In for a penny in for a pound they say. Actually in for 1,557,000,000,000, in for.... well whatever. I either fold and lose 1.5 trillion or I prop up the game and call hoping I don't take the massive loss.
You're essentially using math to show you rolled a slightly smaller snowball than the next guy downhill and claiming its the other guy's fault there were deaths in the avalanche. Believe it or not I work for the government. I'm not exactly impressed with their official numbers.
z987k
Well-Known Member
But I thought the left were all uber educated elites(they're elite because they chose to get an education), not brainwashed sheep like N. Korea. Oh wait... education IS brainwashing.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Have you heard me defend Bush lately? That said according to CBO numbers the direct cost of the Iraq war was less than the 2009 stimulus bill:
Full Disclosure: The source is a Fox News Article
Other articles I can dig up put the total costs in the 3 trillion range by the latter part of this decade. Even then, that's only a fraction of the total debt. Sure. Bush added a lot to that number, but BHO added a similar number in half the time.
All that said, the past is past. If we're done dismissing CBO number just because it has Al Gore's conservative KPCB signature on it entitlements are going to swallow the entire federal budget is a very short amount of time. What are we going to do about it moving forward?
Would it shock you to know that the first big column was ordered by Bush and a Republican congress?
I HOPE the two parties can CHANGE.
Looks like some of you have been breaking the first rule about Air Canada.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
WTH does this thread have to do with Air Canada?
Douglas
Old School KSUX
"You don't talk about Air Canada."