• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

60 years ago today....

A democrat 'fixing' the economy?!

I love you Jynx, but....

Bwwwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The economy fixes itself, nobody fixes it. Policies can be enacted to help with a recovery when we grind into a recession or negative growth for a quarter, but there is no way to 'fix' the economy. That's the wonderful thing about it, it will self correct and bring things back to where they should be.
 
"Never argue with an idiot because a casual observer can’t tell whose winning."

I'll set aside the emotion responses and rely solely on my personal experiences for a few moments. I've "walked the walk" so I feel qualified to "talk the talk"........

I've now set foot on the sovereign soil of 12 countries while wearing the uniform of my nation's military. Without exception, my presence was requested by the freely elected government of each host nation. Never was I considered to be an "invader", a "conqueror" or "unwelcome".

I've just returned from Romania where my team of American and Romania military personnel put a new roof on a kindergarten, built bathrooms and playgrounds for schools, installed sewer lines, electrical lighting, water lines and on a whim, raised enough donations from 800 deploying American soldiers that we were able to purchase two pallets of English textbooks and 6 computer systems for those same schools.

It was hot, miserable, and the work was backbreaking. It was also one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional career. When we arrived, this is the “before” that we found, the only bathroom facility for 67 children between the ages of 3 and 8.
 

Attachments

  • ROMEX_05.jpg
    ROMEX_05.jpg
    71.6 KB · Views: 69
Last edited:
Here is the “after”. The American soldiers came, asked for nothing, and left nothing behind except for a few footprints and a lot of positive memories.

I was approached by an elderly gentleman one afternoon at one of our jobsites. He told us that for the past 60 years, he had “looked to the sky each day waiting for the Americans to come. Now that we were here, (his) dream had been fulfilled.”

He didn’t see us as “invaders” he saw us as a hope for a better tomorrow.
 

Attachments

  • ROMEX_05a.jpg
    ROMEX_05a.jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 69
Last year I was approached by a man in Usti nab Laben, Czech Republic. He asked my translator if it would be OK to present the Americans with a gift. He then produced a small bag which contained an old, rusty, but still readable tin can. We quickly identified it as a standard issue C-ration can of corned beef hash. He then told us the story behind the can.

In April 1945, his family had been displaced by the destruction wrought by the advance of the allies deep into the heart of the German occupied territories. As refugees, they hadn’t had a meal in over a week. As one of the many American columns passed by, several of the GIs stopped, opened their packs, and gave their rations with the families that shared the roads with the convoys. He said it wasn’t much, but it allowed them to continue onward until they could find safe refuge. For 59 years, he had kept that can as a reminder of the kindness of the Americans, who had selflessly shared what little they had with complete strangers.

When he’d heard on the radio that some American soldiers would be in town for an exercise, he’d come in hopes of being able to return the can and at long last, give an American soldier his heart felt thanks for saving the lives of both he and his family so many years ago.

You see, it is not about oil or might, it is about doing what's right. It is the true patriot that stands alone when others won't; when it is easier to simply do nothing than to do something. It is humorous to me that those that complain the loudest have done the least to begin with. It is pretty easy to "armchair the game" from the comfort of you living room, eh Wikked?? :)

I'm humbled to be a simple American soldier.
 

Attachments

  • ROMEX_05b.jpg
    ROMEX_05b.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 68
  • ROMEX_05d.jpg
    ROMEX_05d.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 67
  • ROMEX_05c.jpg
    ROMEX_05c.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 68
  • ROMEX_05e.jpg
    ROMEX_05e.jpg
    126 KB · Views: 68
  • ROMEX_05f.jpg
    ROMEX_05f.jpg
    137.8 KB · Views: 68
Last edited:
sojkas said:
Well, don't get me wrong, but how many of those billions go to future terrorists?
Check pls who armed back in eighties islamic terrorists in Afghanistan?
Middle and South America -> nothing to tell about too.
Please do not get me wrong, I'm far from being one of those crazy idiots saying, that USA "deserved" anything. It's just cause-result.
It happened many times back in history.
This is true, but it's a no-win situation. If America does something we get bashed for "interfering," and if we do nothing we get bashed for doing nothing when we should have done something because hey, we have all that stuff and are just using it for our own purposes. (Which to some extent is true, but hey, it's OUR stuff!)

IIRC, we helped fund and arm and train Afghanistan's resistance against the Soviets, and we helped fund and arm Saddam so he could fight against Iran. I was a child at that time so I didn't follow it very closely. But I'm pretty sure that had we done nothing back then, people would have been griping about America not doing anything. If we had instead just gone in ourselves to fight a war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, or to take down the Iranian government that was holding our people hostage, we would have been equally hated for "interfering" and driving our tanks on holy land, etc.

There really is no "winning" solution.
 
Well remember, I'm not THAT old. I've only really been involved with 3 presidents so far:

1. Bush Sr (went to war)
2. Clinton (economy was great)
3. Bush Jr (war again)

Love ya too honey, but I know how you are when you get set in your ways, and you know how I am. Thats just what I've observed. I think it happens to be correct. Don't start with the whole donkey/elephant thing. I'm not big into politics anyways.
 
Jynx said:
Well remember, I'm not THAT old. I've only really been involved with 3 presidents so far:

1. Bush Sr (went to war)
2. Clinton (economy was great)
3. Bush Jr (war again)

Love ya too honey, but I know how you are when you get set in your ways, and you know how I am. Thats just what I've observed. I think it happens to be correct. Don't start with the whole donkey/elephant thing. I'm not big into politics anyways.

Why was the economy 'great' under Clinton? What events caused this? When did the economy start going bad for George W Bush (there is no senior, they do not share the middle name 'Herbert')? How is the current economy? What policies were inacted by George Bush that helped the economy get out of the recession?
 
Serpwidgets said:
This is true, but it's a no-win situation. If America does something we get bashed for "interfering," and if we do nothing we get bashed for doing nothing when we should have done something because hey, we have all that stuff and are just using it for our own purposes. (Which to some extent is true, but hey, it's OUR stuff!)
Agreed. That's the price the biggest guy in the hood pays and I doubt you can do anything about it.
Serpwidgets said:
IIRC, we helped fund and arm and train Afghanistan's resistance against the Soviets, and we helped fund and arm Saddam so he could fight against Iran. I was a child at that time so I didn't follow it very closely. But I'm pretty sure that had we done nothing back then, people would have been griping about America not doing anything. If we had instead just gone in ourselves to fight a war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, or to take down the Iranian government that was holding our people hostage, we would have been equally hated for "interfering" and driving our tanks on holy land, etc.
There really is no "winning" solution.
The problem is that USA supported some grim regimes for too much time, especially in South America.
Another thing is that USA is pretty bad at keeping friends. I'd really like to visit USA for 2/3 months, just to ride across country, make a lot of photos... But as long as I'm forced to prove I'm good enough to visit - sorry, I'm staying here :)
 
Jynx said:
Democrat goes into office, and rebuilds the economy. Republican goes into office, and we go to war. Notice a pattern?
I'm not a republican or democrat, but 1 thing that really gets me is the whole economy thing and people tying it to the Clinton/Bush exchange. If you recall, what really killed the economy this time around was the dot com bust. All those insanely over-valued internet startups that were getting filthy rich off IPOs even though they had absolutely nothing to show for it. That all happened during Clinton's reign. It all started blowing up before Bush took over. I'm not trying to blame Clinton, but you definitely can't blame Bush.

And as far as the wars, well the first Bush, he chose to save a country that had been mercilessly invaded, and the second Bush was retaliating against our new enemy. Maybe he stretched the truth some, and maybe the latest Iraq portion could be handled better, but it all started for a very valid reason that no one was against while 9-11 was still fresh in our minds and hearts.

Not looking for a fight, just hit a pet peeve of mine.
 
Ok Joe. I'm not going to type out everything, but here's a link. He did do quite a few things for the economy. I know that it's hard for republicans to support democratic decisions, and vice versa. Just keep in mind when you are reading:

there may be 2 sides to politics, but there is still only ONE COUNTRY.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

And I am in no way attacking Bush's choice to go to war... either of them. Both of those wars were (and are) fought for good reason.
 
Joejr14 said:
Why was the economy 'great' under Clinton? What events caused this?
It was a good economy, but it had nothing to do with Clinton. It would have been the same if they had put an inflatable plastic doll in the oval office. IMO it had everything to do with the tech industry that created new wealth in the form of making pretty much every business worker more efficient/productive, and creating new "value" in information that never before existed.

I think Bill Gates can take many times more credit than Bill Clinton. I don't necessarily "like" microsoft, but I also think that MS has a similar position in the realm of computers as the USA has in the world, and the people who bash MS have a whole lot in common with the people who bash America.

When did the economy start going bad for George W Bush (there is no senior, they do not share the middle name 'Herbert')? How is the current economy? What policies were inacted by George Bush that helped the economy get out of the recession?
It went bad before he entered office or before he was even elected. When I moved to Denver it was the fastest growing tech center in the US. Within a short time (before the end of 2000) I was interviewing for tech jobs and competing with literally 500-1000 other people for the same job. IMO what happened was that there was way too much confidence in computer technology, businesses were getting stupid and unrealistic about it as if it was a magic bullet, and the bubble finally popped. The reaction was that nobody in the business world had any confidence in computer-based solutions to anything for at least a couple of years, at least that was my experience.
 
Cav, I enjoyed reading your post. Lets hope the rest on here will take the calmer approach like you. Nice job you've done on that toilet, you've convinced me the US army isn't as bad as I thought it was, lol jkjk. Welcome back
 
Great job Gary! You should be really proud of yourselves for the work you did.

My grandfather had a similar story about the Australian soldiers during WWII. He was an Italian POW in north Africa and would have starved to death had it not been for the Austrailan soldiers sneaking him and the other prisoners rations out of their own packs. A number of years later when it became apparent that the family needed to emigrate to prosper, his memories of how nice the Australians were were so strong that he moved the whole family (including my dad who was 3 years old) down under. Military personel have such a capacity to make a huge impact on people both positive or negative and it sounds like you did a great job. THREE CHEERS FOR CAV!!! :cheers:
 
Well, the real reason for the economic growth during the Clinton years was due to the technology boom.

Incomes increase, tax revenue went up substantially, hence the surplus. Clinton didn't do jack squat for the economy, and it sickens me that he even gets mentioned with a great economy. He was simply lucky due to timing.

And that is not the republican in me speaking, that is the economist in me speaking.

George W. Bush enacted tax cuts that did in fact help the economy, but the impact would have been MUCH larger if he had gotten what he wanted---permanent tax cuts instead of temporary ones that were actually passed. Since they were temporary, people did not spend all of that tax cut, but instead saved some. That's the way to beat a recession, pump the economy by giving more money back to the people.

If you want to go back in history you can see that the Fed really screwed up during the Great Depression by cutting the money supply---stupid stupid move during a recession. A good fiscal plan combined with a good sensible monetary policy can get the economy out of a recession.

Btw, the technology bust happened at the end of Clinton's years and Bush inherited a crapping economy. He's done a good job in the 5-6 years in turning that around and trying to limit taxes on the american people.
 
Taxes were increased as a much greated rate than personal income growth Joe

Jynx said:
Ok Joe. I'm not going to type out everything, but here's a link. He did do quite a few things for the economy. I know that being a republican, it is hard to support a democrat.

Speaking strictly as a degreed economist, the Clinton White House never practiced "fiscal responsibility". It only managed to balance the budget because of the massive, and unprecedented cuts to both the defense and intelligence budgets.

1) Those cuts were so severe the service branches had to cancel most major training exercises because of a lack of funding.

2) The resulting disruptions caused by the intel cutbacks were identified early on in the bi-partisan 9/11 Commissions report as one of the major causes for our failure to stop the attacks in 2001.

As a side note, just to be fair, historically more military action has been started by Democrats than by Republicans, including WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans intervention, and Kosovo. ;)
 
Clinton did balance the budget. An economist would say that government spending is good for the economy, including the war. All the war spending alone SHOULD have a positive effect on the economy. The problems with the Japanese and also German economies have had an impact on us, which is another reason things were better under Clinton, before Japan's huge recession.
 
Serpwidgets said:
It would have been the same if they had put an inflatable plastic doll in the oval office.
Now that would be a candidate I could get behind.

Um, let me rephrase that. :sidestep:

But to the point - no one President, regardless of which side of the aisle he would sit on, can exert that much influence over the economy. It's too big and resilient a machine to be able to tinker with by one person.

Besides, the Fed chairman has more "influence" than any President. I submit that Paul Voelker and Alan Greenspan have had more to do with our economic well-being than Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43, combined.

regards,
jazz
 
CAV said:
2) The resulting disruptions caused by the intel cutbacks were identified early on in the bi-partisan 9/11 Commissions report as one of the major causes for our failure to stop the attacks in 2001.

Don't forget about the intelligence report warning Bin Laden was planning to use aircraft to attack. Bush picked people who would be yes-men (and yes-women in C. Rice's case), and although somewhat qualified, most of them weren't the BEST people he could have picked, if he hadn't been going for demographics. Colin Powell was probably the best, but he resigned and probably wished he had never taken the job in the first place. If you believe Michael Moore, Bush was off playing golf for weeks at a time instead of actively pursuing his charge as Commander in Chief. As far as 'at the White House, doing his job' vs. 'slacking', I think Clinton was much more on top of what was going on, on a day by day and hour by hour basis, and I personally don't think he and his staff would have ignored the intelligence report. There was no 9-11 under Clinton. There was under Bush, and it was well after Bush had taken over. I think if Clinton had been president, the cruise missiles would have been flying as SOON as the Afghanistan link was discovered, and Bin Laden would have been dead long ago. People like to portray Bush as 'tough', but I think Clinton could probably be much more of a mean SOB than he ever could. Of course that might have been one reason why 9-11 wasn't even attempted until after Clinton was out of the White House (and not because he was playing golf in Texas.)
 
CAV said:
You see, it is not about oil or might, it is about doing what's right. It is the true patriot that stands alone when others won't; when it is easier to simply do nothing than to do something. It is humorous to me that those that complain the loudest have done the least to begin with. It is pretty easy to "armchair the game" from the comfort of you living room, eh Wikked?? :)

I'm humbled to be a simple American soldier.

Probably the single best paragraph I've read in a long time, especially considering the source . . .

". . . it is about doing what's right." :cheers:

Thanks CAV for sharing the first hand experience.
D80
 
Duff said:
And as far as the wars, well the first Bush, he chose to save a country that had been mercilessly invaded, and the second Bush was retaliating against our new enemy. Maybe he stretched the truth some, and maybe the latest Iraq portion could be handled better, but it all started for a very valid reason that no one was against while 9-11 was still fresh in our minds and hearts.

If I recall correctly, the 'first' Bush stopped at the devil's door because the US listened to the UN and didn't finish off Iraq and Saddam when we had the chance the first time. . .

D80
 
Back
Top