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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 658
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A premonition SteveB[_2_] Metalworking 12 February 8th 08 08:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"