Canada's new Toyota plant

"Joe" > wrote in message
.. .
: "SVTKate" > wrote in news:MlNAe.2216
: :
:
: >
: > "Joe" > wrote in message
: > .. .
: >: "SVTKate" > wrote in
: news:LlCAe.1949
: >: :
: >:
: >: >
: >: > "Joe" > wrote
: >: >:
: >: >: You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being
: >: >: thrown away.
: >: >
: >: > We heard you the first time.
: >:
: >: Good. It can't be said enough.
: >
: > You are quite a character
:
: LOL! And you're not?

*innocent look*

Oh no.. not ME!

"David Schierholz" > wrote
*snippity snip snip*
:
: Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to
: commute in it in 2005. NASA does.
:
: David

You are my hero this week.

Kate

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in news:j-
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SVTKate wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote
>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>: As a follow up to my reply to Kate, I think we should target
a
>>>>>>>>: large asteroid and see how we can affect its long term
>>>>>>>>: trajectory through various means. Developing that
capability
>>>>>>>>: might prove useful one day!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, I suppose it might prove useful someday, kind of like
the
>>>>>>>>set of taillights I took off of my car MAY be useful someday,
>>
>> not
>>
>>>>>>>>likely, but possible.
>>>>>>>>In the meantime... I still think...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ok, here's the rub.
>>>>>>>>Only as an example, but a real problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Recently in this state they have cut the Tenncare rolls
>>>>>>>>significantly. Loads of people who are really sick (yes and I
am
>>>>>>>>sure some that are taking advantage) have had their medical
>>>>>>>>benefits eliminated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see it this way, $300million would do allot to help people.
>>>>>>>>People who really need it right ehre and now. People who
cannot
>>>>>>>>help themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Kind of the same way I see big fancy churches with the wide
>>>>>>>>screens and Dolby sound.
>>>>>>>>The money spent could be used to do some real good....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know it's a soap box, I just have this terribly practical
>>
>> side.
>>
>>>>>>>The waste bother me too. I also think that while the
possibility
>>>>>>>is remote we should have a plan for dealing with a rogue
>>>>>>>comet/asteroid. It would take that much money. Besides if we
are
>>>>>>>ever hit it would make the suffer you just described look like
>>>>>>>mankind had a common cold, relatively speaking. The real shame
>>
>> is
>>
>>>>>>>that we, and other nations, have to spend so much on defense
and
>>>>>>>military related areas. If we would all just play nice with
each
>>>>>>>other think of the greater good we could accomplish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being
>>>>>>thrown away.
>>>>>
>>>>>To repeat myself, we really won't know for decades if it was a
>>
>> waste
>>
>>>>>or a brilliant move on Bush's part. History will be the judge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brilliant? Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
>>>
>>>In Truman's day that thought he was an idiot too.
>>
>>
>> But at least Truman was never AWOL because he was out partying too
>> much.
>
> Please don't tell me you're going to rely on Dan Rather's circa
1972,
> Microsoft Word generated memos to make a point.

LOL! Nah, just the 'Frontline' show I saw on PBS.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Bob Willard wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>:
>>>>
>>>> > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in
>>>> > Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties
>>>>>aren't anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best,
>>>>>for that matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between
>>>>>the USSR and the US and this was the real reason the war lasted
>>>>>so long. We could have won it but we would probably have ended up
>>>>>fighting the Chinese, just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close
>>>>>to this type of war. The recent news report seem to suggest that
>>>>>troop levels will drop by 100,000 next year. I hope they are
>>>>>correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US
>>>>military ships and planes to help the French move troops and
>>>>supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of
>>>>Saigon in the spring of 1975.
>>>>
>>>>To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend
>>>>Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only
>>>>the Dubya gang had read and understood it ...
>>>
>>>I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the
>>>outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel
>>>Vietnam or any other war.
>>
>>
>> The lack of a good reason for being there and the lack of an exit
>> strategy is certainly common to both.
>>
>>
>>>Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even
>>>then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions
>>>about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. And that's just what we're doing here. Posting opinions.
>>
>>
>>>As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush.
>>
>>
>> As it is for everyone.
>>
>>
>>>There
>>>are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely
>>>nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically,
>>>they have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on
>>>the Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that
>>>have resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative.
>>>Many others are just out to make political hay from complaining
>>>about the war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it
>>>is a waste of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not
>>>really wanting good a debate. They just want to damage President
>>>Bush any and every way they can.
>>
>>
>> Michael, I think the polarization you describe is largely due to
>> (a) the way in which this administration carried out the whole
>> post-9/11 thing (Saddam/Iraq/Bin Laden/WMD/etc.), (b) what they
>> actually did, and (c) the perception (real or imagined) that the
>> current administration is patronizing the American public.
>>
>> I, along with many others, think that the American public was
>> basically deceived and the present administration continues to this
>> day to "spin" the whole thing for their own benefit. At this
>> point, people are downright angry that the administration thinks
>> they are that gullible. Some people believe that the
>> administration has downright lied to them.
>
> I'll admit that I'm a hawk when it comes to national defense.
> Basically, if people are trying to kill us, I want to error on the
> side of caution and take out the threat before they get a chance to
> organize
> and come after us on our own soil. If our government would have
> taken
> care of business during the 1990's, especially after the first World
> Trade Center bombing, 9-11 would likely have never happened. Now I
> don't want to turn this into a liberal verses conservative rant but
> the ones responsible for our security during the 1990's was the
> Democrats. Clinton was our Commander In Chief. His security
> policies let Bin Laden and his cronies languish in Afghanistan and
> hatch plans to kill us and many other people. Clinton knew he was a
> threat because he tried to kill him with a few cruise missiles while
> he was in office. One well placed CIA sniper during the 1990's
> would have saved the world a whole lot of grief. The fact 9-11
> occurred makes me think their (Democrats) way of dealing with
> terrorists was not effective. Leaving them alone got us nothing but
> 3,000 dead people in a matter of hours. I think many people see it
> this way too. 9-11 was the price we paid for Clinton ignoring
> terrorist threats and castrating the CIA. To me, it is a clear
> black and white issue.

Interesting comments, Michael. To a point, I agree, but I don't think
that 9/11 was a direct result of the first WTC bombing. Believe me, the
Democrats are no better than the Republicans (I'm a registered
Independent, btw), and neither party has a clue in dealing with modern
day terrorism. Another problem I have with Bush is that he honestly
thinks he does.

> One thing I know as an indisputable fact is it is better to fight a
> war on your enemy's soil than your own. I'm a firm believer in
> taking it to them so they can't get to us here.

This works both ways, however. When on foreign soil, you're not in your
natural habitat. Other things being equal, the locals have the definite
advantage.

> I think that in the
> days after 9-11 most of us expected to be attacked numerous times
> over the last four years. Now we can all guess why we haven't been
> hit but you can't deny that part of the reason is that we have kept
> the terrorists busy in the Middle East. I think this is exactly why
> Bush went into Iraq. He wanted to make a situation that would
> attract terrorists and draw them into a conflict with our military.

Personally, I think you give him too much credit. It's logical
reasoning, but if it's true, then why hasn't the administration put that
kind of spin on it?

> Since Saddam promoted terrorism he was also part of the overall
> problem. No one can deny that he needed to go away for a multitude
> of reasons. Bush put it all on the line when he went into Iraq and
> I think in his mind it was a vital step in protecting the country.
> He knew it could prevent him from being re-elected and took the
> gamble.

That's the scary part - Bush really thinks he's following the right
course. But his "stay the course" plan isn't a plan. It's simply
status quo.

I think Bush went after Saddam to avenge his father. It's that simple.
I honestly don't believe that Bush and his staff ever rationalized what
you put forth above for a single second. Those guys are simply not like
that.

> I know many people don't like what Bush has done in the war on
> terror but many of those people hated him before he took office and
> they were itching to politicize the war at the first opportunity.
> If Bush was Clinton, the Democrats would be swinging the war hatchet
> with wild abandon getting every political benefit they could, just
> like Bush has.

I think that's conjecture. At least to the point of going after Saddam.
If we were going to go to war, we should've attacked the right target.

> They gave Clinton a free pass on Kosovo. If Bush had done it they
> would have tried to crucify him like they are now. As for what
> percentage of the US population supports Bush all you need to do is
> look at his poll numbers regarding the overall job he has done
> fighting terrorism. They have been consistently high since 9-11.
> If you isolate parts of it, like the Iraq war, the numbers drop but
> overall he gets good marks.

Michael, I don't know what you're reading, but everything I've seen
indicates that Bush's general approval rating is the lowest of his
presidency.

> Now I think the reason for this is that
> most people know that war is a hit and miss proposition. While he
> hasn't made 100% right decisions most people feel he is working in
> the country's best interest and he means business when it come to
> killing the people who are out to kill us and that is what the
> majority of us want him to do.

Sorry, but I disagree entirely. Bush still hasn't admitted to any
mistakes; he believes he's the perfect president. This is what I was
referring to earlier - Bush's insistence on trying to "convince" us that
he's doing the right thing to the point of insulting us (and the rest of
the world). "Mission accomplished" indeed...

> I think many of us have forgotten that the terrorists we are
> fighting want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

Perhaps many, but not most. Nobody yet has come up with a credible plan
to deal with worldwide terrorism as we now know it in this day and age.

> If they could
> they would detonate nuclear warheads in every city in the US and not
> feel a bit of guilt. They want to do far more to us than Hitler
> ever planned. They are very serious about killing us. Serious
> enough to kill themselves to get the job done. I haven't forgotten
> this and neither has Bush. IMO, that is why he will never let up on
> them.

If that's what he's doing, he's doing it all wrong IMO. There's no way
that a single country with limited military resources can wipe out
terrorism on its own turf halfway around the world. The first thing he
should've done was cement his relationship with the rest of the
civilized world and formed strong alliances aginst world terrorism.
Instead, he's talking loudly and carrying his big stick all alone. The
result is that these maniacs you so aptly described are just waiting in
the wings to slaughter whatever troops we send over there.

> One last point, when I hear people say they feel deceived by Bush I
> look back at history and ask "What President didn't use some amount
> of deception at the start of a war?" Roosevelt was a master at it
> prior to WWII. Johnson did it with Vietnam. Truman did it with
> Korea. What makes this war any different? Bush saw a threat that,
> in his opinion, needed dealt with. No president goes to war without
> selling it to the public. The country had a chance to judge him
> during the last election.
> He was re-elected.

Sure, because nobody was there to run against him. Like I said earlier,
I'm certainly no Democrat.

> Did he use the war for political benefit? Yes
> he
> did. Did the Democrats use the war for political benefit? Yes they
> did. I guess they are even then.

I don't see it as a contest at all. Yes, presidents put spin on their
actions to make them look favorable to the American public. But it's
more than war that we're talking about here. Bush is spinning
everything he's doing, from Saddam to WMD to Social Security to No Child
Left Behind to the deficit. They're all miserable failures IMO.

>> The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now
>> than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is
>> _not_ better off now. In no particular order, we're basically
>> hated around the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen,
>> we're in a war that was started for dubious reasons and has no end
>> in sight, and we've got a president that's trying to dismantle
>> Social Security.
>
> How much has the value of your home increased since Bush has been in
> office? Around here most homes have nearly doubled in value. Is
> home ownership at an all time high? Yes it is. Is it at an all
> time high among minorities? Yes it is.

All true, but meaningless. So what if our homes are worth double, or
even triple? We're actually worse off because (a) it's virtually
impossible to move "up" unless you move to a more depressed area, and
(b) your taxes on the inflated value of your new home will kill you.

> Am I making more money than
> I was 5 years ago? Yes I am.

Am I spending more than I was 5 years ago? Yes I am. What's the net
profit after everything's said and done? Mine's not any better than it
was 5 years ago. Bush's "tax cuts" haven't done a thing for me.
Remember a few years ago when we all got a nice check from the
government? Well, how many of us realized at the time that we'd have to
pay tax on that the next year?

> Has inflation been in check for the
> last five years? Yes it has.

True, but energy costs are now killing us. The cost of everything is
going up with no end in sight because of the price of fuel.

> Has interest rates been at historic
> lows the last five years? Yes they have.

Another double-edged sword. Our investments aren't doing ****. My 401k
is sitting right on top of the toilet bowl.

> Have people greatly
> reduced their mortgage payments through refinancing during the last
> five years? Yes they have.

And Americans are now more in debt then they've ever been in the history
of the country.

> Did Bush inherit a recession when he took office? Yes he did.
> Are we
> in a recession now? No we are not.

Did Bush inherit a defecit when he took office? No he did not. Do we
have the worst defecit this country's ever seen? Yes we do. Who's
going to pay for all this wreckless spending? Our kids and their kids.

> Not everything is perfect but we are far from circling the economic
> drain. The debt we have now, as a percentage of GDP, is not the
> worst we have seen and it is much lower than most other advanced
> countries. Check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/8vpfd It shows
> tax revenues are increasing far beyond expectations. Imagine that,
> taxes were cut and tax revenues are up. Maybe Bush wasn't just
> blowing hot air campaigning in the last election.

And I'll bet you a beer that Bush didn't have a clue as to the
additional tax revenue. Here's a different take on the same story:
http://tinyurl.com/bmy7j

> As for dismantling Social Security that isn't the plan Bush is
> promoting.

By removing contributions to it, that's what it amounts to.

> Every person has the choice to keep the status quo or
> put a portion of their withholding into a private account.

Exactly. Those portions that are removed will obviously diminish the
fund.

> If your
> son would have that option, over his life span he would get a far,
> far better return on his money verses what he would see from the
> government.

Michael, take a look at your portfolio and tell me that with a straight
face.

Simply put, there's no guarantee with private plans.

> Chile made private accounts available to their citizens
> years and years ago and in the beginning very few signed up for it.
> The ones that did had much more money to retire on than those that
> didn't. Now over 90% of the work force signs up for the private
> accounts. If it worked in Chile I can't see why it wouldn't work
> here. one of my biggest gripes with Democrats is they think they
> know how to spend our money better than we do. They want us
> dependent on the government and the best way to accomplish it is to
> tax the hell out of us and make the government the sole provider for
> vital services such as health care and retirement checks.

The Democrats are idiots too. The obvious solution for SS is to tax the
money over the cap. But Bush will never do that because his rich
friends would have to pay more.

Anyway, here's a basic idea that makes a lot more sense than Bush's
plan:
http://tinyurl.com/574zk

>> I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of
>> people are upset with this guy.
>
> Reasons can be found to dislike anybody. Look what they came up
> with for Jesus Christ.

Yes, and look where we are today.

> Damn, Joe, I spent WWWAAYYY too much time posting this response.

As did I in responding! But this is certainly better than watching
idiotic reruns on TV or reading some of the other drivel in here...

Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post.

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>> <major snippage applied>
>>I'll admit that I'm a hawk when it comes to national defense.
>>Basically, if people are trying to kill us, I want to error on the
>>side of caution and take out the threat before they get a chance to
>>organize
>> and come after us on our own soil. If our government would have
>> taken
>>care of business during the 1990's, especially after the first World
>>Trade Center bombing, 9-11 would likely have never happened. Now I
>>don't want to turn this into a liberal verses conservative rant but
>>the ones responsible for our security during the 1990's was the
>>Democrats. Clinton was our Commander In Chief. His security
>>policies let Bin Laden and his cronies languish in Afghanistan and
>>hatch plans to kill us and many other people. Clinton knew he was a
>>threat because he tried to kill him with a few cruise missiles while
>>he was in office. One well placed CIA sniper during the 1990's
>>would have saved the world a whole lot of grief. The fact 9-11
>>occurred makes me think their (Democrats) way of dealing with
>>terrorists was not effective. Leaving them alone got us nothing but
>>3,000 dead people in a matter of hours. I think many people see it
>>this way too. 9-11 was the price we paid for Clinton ignoring
>>terrorist threats and castrating the CIA. To me, it is a clear
>> black and white issue.
>
>
> Interesting comments, Michael. To a point, I agree, but I don't think
> that 9/11 was a direct result of the first WTC bombing. Believe me, the
> Democrats are no better than the Republicans (I'm a registered
> Independent, btw), and neither party has a clue in dealing with modern
> day terrorism. Another problem I have with Bush is that he honestly
> thinks he does.

IMO, there is one thing we can do that would greatly reduce our problems
with the Middle East.... QUIT BUYING THEIR F#$$ING OIL!!! Sorry for
yelling but for Christ's sake why our fearless leaders (Repubs and Dems)
can't get this accomplished is a shame. Actually, I do know. It's
because we, the voters, won't remove their asses from office and vote in
people who will get the job done. We're funding their damn jihad!

>>One thing I know as an indisputable fact is it is better to fight a
>>war on your enemy's soil than your own. I'm a firm believer in
>>taking it to them so they can't get to us here.
>
>
> This works both ways, however. When on foreign soil, you're not in your
> natural habitat. Other things being equal, the locals have the definite
> advantage.

True but when I see children, buildings and civilians being blown up in
Iraq I'm sure glad it is there and not here. My pet peeve here is why
we can't provide better border security.

>>I think that in the
>>days after 9-11 most of us expected to be attacked numerous times
>>over the last four years. Now we can all guess why we haven't been
>>hit but you can't deny that part of the reason is that we have kept
>>the terrorists busy in the Middle East. I think this is exactly why
>>Bush went into Iraq. He wanted to make a situation that would
>>attract terrorists and draw them into a conflict with our military.
>
>
> Personally, I think you give him too much credit. It's logical
> reasoning, but if it's true, then why hasn't the administration put that
> kind of spin on it?

I've heard him say something similar. He has mentioned the bit about
fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. One other
thing that I think will affect the Middle East is if we can inject a
lethal dose of "Americanization" into Iraq and let it spread like a
virus through the region. I think that once they get a taste of
economic and political freedom, blue jeans, fast food, porn on demand
etc. they are done for.

>>Since Saddam promoted terrorism he was also part of the overall
>>problem. No one can deny that he needed to go away for a multitude
>>of reasons. Bush put it all on the line when he went into Iraq and
>>I think in his mind it was a vital step in protecting the country.
>>He knew it could prevent him from being re-elected and took the
>>gamble.
>
>
> That's the scary part - Bush really thinks he's following the right
> course. But his "stay the course" plan isn't a plan. It's simply
> status quo.

I think we are expecting instant gratification from Iraq. It just isn't
something that can be completed on a planned time table. Too many
variables are in the equation. The way out is to train the Iraqis to
defend themselves and give them time to establish a fairly stable
government. The people there have not had freedom for 35 years. There
is a whole generation that probably can't even put their mind around the
concept of living in freedom. I was doubting that they had the desire
to make it happen until 8 million (around 60% turnout) of them turned
out to vote even though they were being told by the terrorists their
blood would flood the streets. The Iraqis are really getting along fine
with each other. It's the outsiders coming through Syria that are
causing 90% of the trouble. I think once we leave much of the violence
will cease.

> I think Bush went after Saddam to avenge his father. It's that simple.
> I honestly don't believe that Bush and his staff ever rationalized what
> you put forth above for a single second. Those guys are simply not like
> that.

I'm sure there was some satisfaction in that respect. I think it was
about 0.5% of why he went into Iraq though.

>>I know many people don't like what Bush has done in the war on
>>terror but many of those people hated him before he took office and
>>they were itching to politicize the war at the first opportunity.
>>If Bush was Clinton, the Democrats would be swinging the war hatchet
>>with wild abandon getting every political benefit they could, just
>>like Bush has.
>
>
> I think that's conjecture. At least to the point of going after Saddam.
> If we were going to go to war, we should've attacked the right target.

I think Iraq was also a convenient target to show the region that the US
wasn't a paper tiger. We waltzed into Iraq and kicked Saddam's ass is
record time and part of the reason was to show the rest of the area how
easy it is to remove someone from power. Many of these rulers know we
can't police the entire middle east but we can put the cross hairs on
any given regime and it would not exist anymore. It sure made Khadfi
play nice!

>> They gave Clinton a free pass on Kosovo. If Bush had done it they
>>would have tried to crucify him like they are now. As for what
>>percentage of the US population supports Bush all you need to do is
>>look at his poll numbers regarding the overall job he has done
>>fighting terrorism. They have been consistently high since 9-11.
>>If you isolate parts of it, like the Iraq war, the numbers drop but
>>overall he gets good marks.
>
>
> Michael, I don't know what you're reading, but everything I've seen
> indicates that Bush's general approval rating is the lowest of his
> presidency.

I'm not referring to overall ratings. Just the "war on terror" numbers.
The overall ratings are deceiving IMO. If they were accurate he
shouldn't have been re-elected. Many of those dissatisfied people are
upset because he isn't conservative or hawkish enough.

>>Now I think the reason for this is that
>>most people know that war is a hit and miss proposition. While he
>>hasn't made 100% right decisions most people feel he is working in
>>the country's best interest and he means business when it come to
>>killing the people who are out to kill us and that is what the
>>majority of us want him to do.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree entirely. Bush still hasn't admitted to any
> mistakes; he believes he's the perfect president. This is what I was
> referring to earlier - Bush's insistence on trying to "convince" us that
> he's doing the right thing to the point of insulting us (and the rest of
> the world). "Mission accomplished" indeed...

No politician admits to mistakes unless they are caught on video or
there's DNA evidence. Clinton tried to convince us that a BJ wasn't sex
rather than say he lied! I think Bush, or the military's, biggest
mistake in Iraq was not sealing off the border with Syria and Iran.
They need to put a mass of troops on Syria's border and tell them to
stop letting the terrorists use their border area as a staging base.
Bush should take a lesson from Regan and give old Bashar al-Asad a love
tap with a cruise missile.

>>I think many of us have forgotten that the terrorists we are
>>fighting want to wipe us off the face of the earth.
>
>
> Perhaps many, but not most. Nobody yet has come up with a credible plan
> to deal with worldwide terrorism as we now know it in this day and age.

IMO, the only way to solve the problem is to bring democracy and
economic advancement to the region. It is a lofty goal but I think it
is the only way to win the war on terror. The people in the middle east
have very little freedom and most are dirt poor. It is the true cause
of the discontent that the religious leaders are able to exploit.

>>If they could
>>they would detonate nuclear warheads in every city in the US and not
>>feel a bit of guilt. They want to do far more to us than Hitler
>>ever planned. They are very serious about killing us. Serious
>>enough to kill themselves to get the job done. I haven't forgotten
>>this and neither has Bush. IMO, that is why he will never let up on
>>them.
>
>
> If that's what he's doing, he's doing it all wrong IMO. There's no way
> that a single country with limited military resources can wipe out
> terrorism on its own turf halfway around the world. The first thing he
> should've done was cement his relationship with the rest of the
> civilized world and formed strong alliances aginst world terrorism.
> Instead, he's talking loudly and carrying his big stick all alone. The
> result is that these maniacs you so aptly described are just waiting in
> the wings to slaughter whatever troops we send over there.

The French, Germans, Russians and the UN would never have cooperated
with us. They were making too much money from Saddam. The "Oil for
Food" program was rife with corruption. Last I heard there was 21
BILLION dollars slid into the palms of these guys. Why on earth would
they support us and cut off their Saddam subsidies? IMO, they figured
Bush would never follow through on his threat to invade Iraq. Hell,
Saddam never thought he would do it. I bet he now wishes he had let the
UN inspectors verify he had no WMD's!

>>One last point, when I hear people say they feel deceived by Bush I
>>look back at history and ask "What President didn't use some amount
>>of deception at the start of a war?" Roosevelt was a master at it
>>prior to WWII. Johnson did it with Vietnam. Truman did it with
>>Korea. What makes this war any different? Bush saw a threat that,
>>in his opinion, needed dealt with. No president goes to war without
>>selling it to the public. The country had a chance to judge him
>>during the last election.
>> He was re-elected.
>
>
> Sure, because nobody was there to run against him. Like I said earlier,
> I'm certainly no Democrat.

The Democrats really did run weak candidates the last two elections,
IMO. The far left wing has taken over the party and controls the
primary elections. As long as they do this the Dems will keep putting
up liberal candidates that can't win. It's the equivalent of Pat
Buchanan running the Republican Party. The next election should be a
doozy if Hillary runs. It will make the last two look like Mr. Rogers
episodes.

>>Did he use the war for political benefit? Yes
>> he
>>did. Did the Democrats use the war for political benefit? Yes they
>>did. I guess they are even then.
>
>
> I don't see it as a contest at all. Yes, presidents put spin on their
> actions to make them look favorable to the American public. But it's
> more than war that we're talking about here. Bush is spinning
> everything he's doing, from Saddam to WMD to Social Security to No Child
> Left Behind to the deficit. They're all miserable failures IMO.

I don't agree but the Dems aren't suggesting anything that is better.
In fact they aren't suggesting much of anything at all. At least the
Republicans are thowing ideas into the arena.

>>>The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now
>>>than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is
>>>_not_ better off now. In no particular order, we're basically
>>>hated around the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen,
>>>we're in a war that was started for dubious reasons and has no end
>>>in sight, and we've got a president that's trying to dismantle
>>>Social Security.
>>
>>How much has the value of your home increased since Bush has been in
>>office? Around here most homes have nearly doubled in value. Is
>>home ownership at an all time high? Yes it is. Is it at an all
>>time high among minorities? Yes it is.
>
>
> All true, but meaningless. So what if our homes are worth double, or
> even triple? We're actually worse off because (a) it's virtually
> impossible to move "up" unless you move to a more depressed area, and
> (b) your taxes on the inflated value of your new home will kill you.

There are many people in this area sitting on $200k-$300k worth of
equity in their houses. No matter how you slice it they are ahead.
Most people can take that equity and move to bigger house or they can
stay where they are and let it grow further. Many people here are
selling their homes, taking the equity and moving into their dream
house. They certainly aren't complaining.

>>Am I making more money than
>>I was 5 years ago? Yes I am.
>
>
> Am I spending more than I was 5 years ago? Yes I am. What's the net
> profit after everything's said and done? Mine's not any better than it
> was 5 years ago. Bush's "tax cuts" haven't done a thing for me.
> Remember a few years ago when we all got a nice check from the
> government? Well, how many of us realized at the time that we'd have to
> pay tax on that the next year?

As we have talked before, the technical fields have seen a tremendous
increase in salaries in this area. Civil engineers are making nearly
twice what they were in the mid 1990's. People who don't want to
educate themselves (I don't mean college just increasing their value to
an employer through training etc.) are not likely to get ahead. Also,
Bush's tax cut was better than no tax cut at all. If they had kept your
money you would have seen absolutely no benefit. This way at least
you're ahead by a few dollars.

>>Has inflation been in check for the
>>last five years? Yes it has.
>
>
> True, but energy costs are now killing us. The cost of everything is
> going up with no end in sight because of the price of fuel.

Inflation is still very low even with the high oil prices. Fact is we
have been spoiled by low energy prices. The price of gas has bucked the
inflation rate for decades. China is now the world's 800lb oil gorilla
and we had better get used to it. I guess you and I will have to give
up V-8's.

>>Has interest rates been at historic
>>lows the last five years? Yes they have.
>
>
> Another double-edged sword. Our investments aren't doing ****. My 401k
> is sitting right on top of the toilet bowl.

Since interest rates have been low the stock market has improved. The
market, long term, has done well since Bush has been in office.

>>Have people greatly
>>reduced their mortgage payments through refinancing during the last
>>five years? Yes they have.
>
>
> And Americans are now more in debt then they've ever been in the history
> of the country.

Much of this is due to home values increasing. That isn't necessarily a
bad thing.

>> Did Bush inherit a recession when he took office? Yes he did.
>> Are we
>>in a recession now? No we are not.
>
>
> Did Bush inherit a defecit when he took office? No he did not. Do we
> have the worst defecit this country's ever seen? Yes we do. Who's
> going to pay for all this wreckless spending? Our kids and their kids.

He did inherit a war and a recession. I don't like the spending he has
done either. It is my biggest gripe about him. The overall deficit is
the largest but the annual shortfall as a percentage of GDP is not.

>>Not everything is perfect but we are far from circling the economic
>>drain. The debt we have now, as a percentage of GDP, is not the
>>worst we have seen and it is much lower than most other advanced
>>countries. Check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/8vpfd It shows
>>tax revenues are increasing far beyond expectations. Imagine that,
>>taxes were cut and tax revenues are up. Maybe Bush wasn't just
>>blowing hot air campaigning in the last election.
>
>
> And I'll bet you a beer that Bush didn't have a clue as to the
> additional tax revenue. Here's a different take on the same story:
> http://tinyurl.com/bmy7j

He campaigned on it. It's just happening sooner than predicted. I read
the article and they were trying to say much of the revenues are from
stock market profits and when the stock market bubble bursts revenue
will fall. We aren't anywhere near the bubble that developed in the
90's. In fact there really isn't a stock market bubble. Maybe there is
a real estate bubble.

>>As for dismantling Social Security that isn't the plan Bush is
>>promoting.
>
>
> By removing contributions to it, that's what it amounts to.

But those contributions are in a personal account for the benefit of the
tax payer. The plan is that person will receive fewer benefits when he
retires. No one will ever miss a SS check. It just won't happen.

>>Every person has the choice to keep the status quo or
>>put a portion of their withholding into a private account.
>
>
> Exactly. Those portions that are removed will obviously diminish the
> fund.

The personal accounts will grow. If we don't give the young people
today a choice for private accounts it will be a shame. They deserve to
have more than a meager SS check to retire on.

>>If your
>>son would have that option, over his life span he would get a far,
>>far better return on his money verses what he would see from the
>>government.
>
>
> Michael, take a look at your portfolio and tell me that with a straight
> face.
>
> Simply put, there's no guarantee with private plans.

Look at the market over any given 50 year span. The gains are alway
there. You can't think short term. Ask someone who bought stocks in
the 1950's that still have them if they have made money. Just look at
the wealth of people who bought Microsoft stock in the 1980's.

>>Chile made private accounts available to their citizens
>>years and years ago and in the beginning very few signed up for it.
>>The ones that did had much more money to retire on than those that
>>didn't. Now over 90% of the work force signs up for the private
>>accounts. If it worked in Chile I can't see why it wouldn't work
>>here. one of my biggest gripes with Democrats is they think they
>>know how to spend our money better than we do. They want us
>>dependent on the government and the best way to accomplish it is to
>>tax the hell out of us and make the government the sole provider for
>>vital services such as health care and retirement checks.
>
>
> The Democrats are idiots too. The obvious solution for SS is to tax the
> money over the cap. But Bush will never do that because his rich
> friends would have to pay more.
>
> Anyway, here's a basic idea that makes a lot more sense than Bush's
> plan:
> http://tinyurl.com/574zk

I'm fundamentally against any tax increases on any level of government.
We are taxed by Federal, State and local government to an extent most
don't realize. The Feds have squandered all the money they should have
been putting away for social security. The government can't be trusted
with the money they currently collect so why give them more? I also
have a problem with the rich being portrayed as evil, greedy, money
grubbing trolls. Nearly all the rich people (assets of $1 million or
more) I know earned every penny they have. All the ones I know made
their money honestly. Some didn't but I bet they are few and far
between. They hire many people and pay them well or generate work for
other businesses. I ask people who complain about the rich if they
every got a paycheck from someone on welfare. I'm working my ass off to
get rich. I really don't want to be taxed up the ass if I manage to make
it.

>>>I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of
>>>people are upset with this guy.
>>
>>Reasons can be found to dislike anybody. Look what they came up
>>with for Jesus Christ.
>
>
> Yes, and look where we are today.
>
>
>>Damn, Joe, I spent WWWAAYYY too much time posting this response.
>
>
> As did I in responding! But this is certainly better than watching
> idiotic reruns on TV or reading some of the other drivel in here...

Hell, I could have used the time I spent on the last two posts working
and been half way to being rich!

> Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post.

Same to you. I enjoy discussing things with someone that doesn't get
bent out of shape because we have different points of view. I need to
get some sleep now.

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in news:j-
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>SVTKate wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>: As a follow up to my reply to Kate, I think we should target
>
> a
>
>>>>>>>>>: large asteroid and see how we can affect its long term
>>>>>>>>>: trajectory through various means. Developing that
>
> capability
>
>>>>>>>>>: might prove useful one day!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, I suppose it might prove useful someday, kind of like
>
> the
>
>>>>>>>>>set of taillights I took off of my car MAY be useful someday,
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>likely, but possible.
>>>>>>>>>In the meantime... I still think...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ok, here's the rub.
>>>>>>>>>Only as an example, but a real problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Recently in this state they have cut the Tenncare rolls
>>>>>>>>>significantly. Loads of people who are really sick (yes and I
>
> am
>
>>>>>>>>>sure some that are taking advantage) have had their medical
>>>>>>>>>benefits eliminated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I see it this way, $300million would do allot to help people.
>>>>>>>>>People who really need it right ehre and now. People who
>
> cannot
>
>>>>>>>>>help themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Kind of the same way I see big fancy churches with the wide
>>>>>>>>>screens and Dolby sound.
>>>>>>>>>The money spent could be used to do some real good....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know it's a soap box, I just have this terribly practical
>>>
>>>side.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>The waste bother me too. I also think that while the
>
> possibility
>
>>>>>>>>is remote we should have a plan for dealing with a rogue
>>>>>>>>comet/asteroid. It would take that much money. Besides if we
>
> are
>
>>>>>>>>ever hit it would make the suffer you just described look like
>>>>>>>>mankind had a common cold, relatively speaking. The real shame
>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>that we, and other nations, have to spend so much on defense
>
> and
>
>>>>>>>>military related areas. If we would all just play nice with
>
> each
>
>>>>>>>>other think of the greater good we could accomplish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being
>>>>>>>thrown away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To repeat myself, we really won't know for decades if it was a
>>>
>>>waste
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>or a brilliant move on Bush's part. History will be the judge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Brilliant? Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
>>>>
>>>>In Truman's day that thought he was an idiot too.
>>>
>>>
>>>But at least Truman was never AWOL because he was out partying too
>>>much.
>>
>>Please don't tell me you're going to rely on Dan Rather's circa
>
> 1972,
>
>>Microsoft Word generated memos to make a point.
>
>
> LOL! Nah, just the 'Frontline' show I saw on PBS.

Good. I thought I was going to have to work the line "What's the
frequency, Kenneth?" into my next post.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

<snip>
> Good. I thought I was going to have to work the line "What's the
> frequency, Kenneth?" into my next post.

Now _there's_ a neat reference. And you did seem to work it in...

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
<snip>
>> Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post.
>
> Same to you. I enjoy discussing things with someone that doesn't
> get bent out of shape because we have different points of view. I
> need to get some sleep now.

Yes, what the hell were you doing up in the middle of the night
posting here?!? I thought you actually worked for a living!

Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing it.
We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate. Let's hijack
another thread another time and continue at that point if you don't
mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here for pure entertainment
tonight...

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post.
>>
>>Same to you. I enjoy discussing things with someone that doesn't
>>get bent out of shape because we have different points of view. I
>>need to get some sleep now.
>
>
> Yes, what the hell were you doing up in the middle of the night
> posting here?!? I thought you actually worked for a living!

I work out of the basement of the house. When I get into a project I
find my sleep schedule gets all screwed up. I work late then have to
unwind before I can sleep and then sleep late in the morning. After a
week or two of this I'm all screwed up. The good thing is it doesn't
matter when I work just that I work 8-12 hours a day.

> Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing it.
> We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate. Let's hijack
> another thread another time and continue at that point if you don't
> mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here for pure entertainment
> tonight...

I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts anyway. Could
it have been THAT boring?!?!

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post.
>>>
>>>Same to you. I enjoy discussing things with someone that doesn't
>>>get bent out of shape because we have different points of view. I
>>>need to get some sleep now.
>>
>>
>> Yes, what the hell were you doing up in the middle of the night
>> posting here?!? I thought you actually worked for a living!
>
> I work out of the basement of the house. When I get into a project
> I find my sleep schedule gets all screwed up. I work late then have
> to unwind before I can sleep and then sleep late in the morning.
> After a week or two of this I'm all screwed up. The good thing is
> it doesn't matter when I work just that I work 8-12 hours a day.

Yes, I knew you had a 10-second commute and a bizarre work schedule.
So do you actually get dressed for work, or do you end up taking a
shower at like 4pm for lunch?

I work home Mondays and Fridays. Gave my boss the sob story of my 3-
hour commute per day down to Miami and back, not to mention 14mpg in
the torquemonster. She asked me if I could deal with two days from
home and I instantly said no problem.

>> Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing
>> it. We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate.
>> Let's hijack another thread another time and continue at that point
>> if you don't mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here for pure
>> entertainment tonight...
>
> I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts anyway.
> Could it have been THAT boring?!?!

Well, I know Kate read a few of my comments from the other day...

Hell, of course we're boring - we're both over 40.