Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
RCM only
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:27:43 -0800 (PST), with neither quill nor qualm, MooseFET quickly quoth: End debt over GDP data from your suggested reference: Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 35.7% Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 35.8% Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 32.6% Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 43.9% Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 53.1% Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 66.2% Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 65.6% Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 57.4% Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 64.3% It is much the same graph with just a different scaling. The other graph was scaled by the value of the constant dollar. The rapid increases in dept for both scalings is still aligned with the republican president. On your scaling both Carter and Clinton are shown to have improved the situation. What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. Nogood revenooers, the bunch of them. -- SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... RCM only On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:27:43 -0800 (PST), with neither quill nor qualm, MooseFET quickly quoth: End debt over GDP data from your suggested reference: Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 35.7% Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 35.8% Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 32.6% Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 43.9% Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 53.1% Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 66.2% Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 65.6% Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 57.4% Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 64.3% It is much the same graph with just a different scaling. The other graph was scaled by the value of the constant dollar. The rapid increases in dept for both scalings is still aligned with the republican president. On your scaling both Carter and Clinton are shown to have improved the situation. What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures for those years, as well as the national debt. Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would have reduced or eliminated. When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. -- Ed Huntress |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:30:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . RCM only What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures for those years, as well as the national debt. Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would have reduced or eliminated. Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_patr...er/2215229985/ shows how well the NAACP and the ED have done so far. No Child Left Behind is ruining the rest of the kids by putting the teachers down to worst-case-scenario teaching levels. Feh! -- SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:30:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. RCM only What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures for those years, as well as the national debt. Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would have reduced or eliminated. Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site. d8-) Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to find. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. I think you're in for some surprises. -- Ed Huntress |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
Larry Jaques wrote:
P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. Larry what would you do about the million or so that would leave "unemployed"? :-) ...lew... |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:28:21 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site. d8-) Yes, I did. Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to find. OK. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. I think you're in for some surprises. Can you expand on that? -- Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. --Ronald Reagan |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:58:43 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hartswick quickly quoth: Larry Jaques wrote: P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. Larry what would you do about the million or so that would leave "unemployed"? :-) With the immediate expansion of the private sector due to the removal of massive gov't intervention, I ask you "What unemployed?" -- SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:28:21 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site. d8-) Yes, I did. Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to find. OK. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. I think you're in for some surprises. Can you expand on that? No, because I don't know what would surprise you. d8-) Some of the things you mention are such a trivial part of the budget that you will hardly notice them. The War Against Drugs, for example. And the DoE, while 2/3 of it is nuclear-weapon and -power related and most of THAT is Navy nukes, amounts to around 3/4 of ONE percent of the total budget. That's WITH all the nukes included. If you're looking to save something you can measure, you'll need to look elsewhere. -- Ed Huntress |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:30:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. RCM only What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures for those years, as well as the national debt. Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would have reduced or eliminated. Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site. d8-) Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to find. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. I think you're in for some surprises. Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a diplomat. Hawke |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Hawke" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:30:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. RCM only What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money like it was going out of style. There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures for those years, as well as the national debt. Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would have reduced or eliminated. Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter When you look at the annual budgets (available at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy. Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things? Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them. I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site. d8-) Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to find. P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're funding Israel's weapons. That'd just about cut the budget in half. I think you're in for some surprises. Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a diplomat. Hawke Almost everyone gets surprises when they dig into the federal budget. Larry has identified a number of expenses that actually are quite small. Then he says (facetiously, perhaps) that cutting them ought to cut out half of the budget. Why don't you take a look? -- Ed Huntress |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:22:05 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Hawke" wrote in message ... Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a diplomat. FOAD, Parakeet. Almost everyone gets surprises when they dig into the federal budget. Larry has identified a number of expenses that actually are quite small. Then he says (facetiously, perhaps) that cutting them ought to cut out half of the budget. They're all superfluous, too. A properly wielded line item veto would do wonders for the future. You think $173B on the war on terrorism is small potatoes? And $28B for DHS? Granted, the $167M for the EPA isn't a large expenditure, but it stifles a lot more economic growth than that figure. (SWAG) The program terminations look like a good step. There are only 2 which look like they should stay--the preventive health items. That's a long list of tables. /crossed eyes -- SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A premonition
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:22:05 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Hawke" wrote in message ... Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a diplomat. FOAD, Parakeet. Almost everyone gets surprises when they dig into the federal budget. Larry has identified a number of expenses that actually are quite small. Then he says (facetiously, perhaps) that cutting them ought to cut out half of the budget. They're all superfluous, too. A properly wielded line item veto would do wonders for the future. You think $173B on the war on terrorism is small potatoes? And $28B for DHS? Granted, the $167M for the EPA isn't a large expenditure, but it stifles a lot more economic growth than that figure. (SWAG) I can only do this using scientific notation on my calculator. d8-) But the things you list here amount to 6.5% of the budget. If you want to make a real dent or start a real ball rolling, you have 93.5% to go. That's the way we typically look at it. We pick some emotional hot-button items, look at the big bucks, and think those things are the problem. But they're typically so trivial that they almost disappear in the woodwork. When you look at the big items (which you can see; I'm not going to start a big thread by listing them), you realize that this is a bigger problem than it looks like. Making meaningful cuts in the federal budget is murderously difficult. The program terminations look like a good step. There are only 2 which look like they should stay--the preventive health items. That's a long list of tables. /crossed eyes And you haven't even seen the detail. That's just the summary. -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A premonition | Metalworking |