Warbird Information Exchange

[quote="muddyboots"][quote="Broken-Wrench"][quote="muddyboots"][quote] I NEVER said that " the very very few of us who inherited large amounts of property and can therefore not work at all (Lucky me)

I charge fair rent on my land. Almost all of what I make goes back into putting the kids of my tenants through college. [/quote]

Could this attitude be attributed to that the fact that you really didn't earn the land that you were given therefore you feel guilty inside for having so much which in turn is why your putting your tenants kids thru college? Why have them pay rent at all and why bother with military disability???[/quote]

I bought about half teh land I own while I was on active duty. Most of it was property my family sold over the years, to people who proceeded to screw it up. When I started buying it back it had basically been abandoned and had a beaver darn at one end turning it into a swamp. My neighbors helped me clear it and move some small woodframes that had been abandoned on to it, and they then helped me take care of my property all those years I was gone. Also while I was gone member of my family took in the rent and never put a dime into imporoving it. My friends who were renting the land DID work on it, and kept it up--out of their own pockets. And when I needed a family, they were it. So now I make sure their kids can have more than we had a chance to have.

Unfortunately there aren't many people out tehre with my experiences. We've forgotten what community is, and we certainly don't give a sugar about our neighbors.
And BW, I earned every damned penny of my disability. I'll do wit it as I please.[/quote]

It sound like a B.S. story to me as I have lived on the military pay scale But I'll tell you great job if it makes you fell better about yourself.

Darn, August, just when the boys had a great cat fight going here and A2C had almost convinced me that Clinton was behind the whole Fannie Mae thing even if he wasn't born when it started, or in office when Congress backed it.

Now you come along with all this logic. Heck, you are probably one of those elite lefty law school EDUCATED types, and wasted all you time studying when you could have been at the bowling alley or mud wrestling or gun show or monster truck rally like a real Amerikan.

Next time I see a post by K5083, I'll know to ignore it since it will probably be full or all those boring facts.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill:

Did you hear Hillary say she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born 5 years or so before he becamee famous for climbing Everest?

[quote="Bill Greenwood"]Darn, August, just when the boys had a great cat fight going here and A2C had almost convinced me that Clinton was behind the whole Fannie Mae thing even if he wasn't born when it started, or in office when Congress backed it.

Now you come along with all this logic. Heck, you are probably one of those elite lefty law school EDUCATED types, and wasted all you time studying when you could have been at the bowling alley or mud wrestling or gun show or monster truck rally like a real Amerikan.

Next time I see a post by K5083, I'll know to ignore it since it will probably be full or all those boring facts.[/quote]

I like it when trust fund kids talk tough....

A2C, re "Hillary":
I. I am surprised that you would be following and concerned with the origin or her name. What does the origin of her name have to do in any way with the Economy which is the topic of this post?
II. Edmund Hillary climbed his first major mountain is 1939 according to WIK. I don't know if he was famous in his own circle before that.
III. I don't see the connection between the origin of her name, whether it came from the climber or not, has anything to do with govt or economic policy.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Hi Bill:

It's not, I just mentioned it.

Big Grey, Les thanks for answering my question or at least trying to. As for what I would cut, I am not sure, I haven't even studied it in years.

McCain said he wants to cut "pork", that is the pet projects congressmen add on to bills. Sounds good on the surface, but what person running for office that has a defense plant in their district, Lockheed, is really going to vote to cut back on the number of Raptors ordered? What congressman with a big NFL team in his city, is ever going to forgo a subsidy to build a new stadium?

Obama has said he wants to do line item veto, that is he can go through the budget an delete or shrink any program he finds wasteful. Again, sounds good, but what if he deletes some program for solar energy research that is based in Arizona in McCain's state. Is McCain going to tell his citizens, "let them eat cake". How about the solar and alternate energy projects in Colo, one is even in Aspen. Are their funds going to be cut, after we delivered Colo for Obama this year? One guys pork is another guys porridge.

I guess there are two approaches to take. First, put a freeze on any and all budget growth, NO EXCEPTIONS. NOT FOR THE MILITARY OR WELFARE OR ANY. Start the idea of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps even challenge every dept to come up with their own way to cut 2% off each budget.

The next way would be to cut certain programs, and while I'd look at all of them, I would focus on the big ones. I know the defense budget is one, and it is one that has a lot of high tech and expensive toys. I don't know where the fat is for sure, but if we plan to buy 200 Raptors or Ospreys, and the number is scaled back 10%, I don't think the monguls are going to be at our doors the next week. I'd bet the welfare system has many areas of waste, even if not so concentrated and high tech. One small area that I have noticed is airport towers. Look at Eagle, Co and Oshkosh for instance. They had perfectly useable control towers that were just replaced by new fancy multi-million dollar ones. Front Range in Denver got one, too, even though neither it nor Osh even have airline traffic. Of course this spending is not all bad, it puts money into the local economy for construction, but the facility does not earn any money over what was there before, there really isn't any return on investment.

Of course, the biggest item I'd end is the Iraq War. I'd get our troops home for moral reasons, but just looking at it economically we have thrown about a $trillion down that rat hole and it's not coming back. Haliburton and a few others have gotten richer, but for the most part it is not productive spending. No one has a better auto dealership or mortgage company or drug store or ski shop or restaurant or movie theater because of the war spending. We sure did not get cheap oil out of it. I don't really think we should be spending our taxpayers money to build the Iraqis a big hotel at the Baghdad airport or a huge mega embassy complex there. If we have excess construction money let's help the flood victims in New Orleans or Galveston, let's help our own citizens.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

What you are talking about is sensible, but I'd say cut all spending on useless projects, no matter who it hurts. If it starts infighting in congress, great! Let it happen, the government does much better when it does as little as possible.

As for Iraq, the war is over, we are now a security force. Trying to get the country running on it's own. It would be stupid to bring the troops back now, because of the cost in aviation fuel on air and ship tickets would be way high. My thought is this:

The military is in Iraq, or it is here. What the heck is the difference. You pay them here, and you pay them there so what. It's a political chess piece. Let's turn this into a new topic since it's way off on a tangent.

Ryan, everything you've said about Marxism in this thread is gibberish but I think I know what you're doing. You've adopted "Marxism" as your new all-purpose pejorative for forms of democracy and capitalism that you don't like, because the stigma has been taken out of "liberal" lately. I discovered that if I read through your posts and substitute "liberal" wherever you've written "Marxist," they read like posts of years ago and make a bit more sense. Most of your rightie colleagues have only upped the ante as far as "socialist," which also has the advantage of not really meaning anything.

Wrench: Trust fund, I wish! No, I started at $0.00 like most of you. And in Canadian dollars at that.

Now then, rightie boys, listen up because I am going to tell you the only way that has a chance of shrinking government. And yes, it's raising taxes. What you have to understand is that government is an economic entity just like a corporation. It distributes services as demanded by the public at prices that we call "taxes". It is subject to demand curves like any other entity, meaning that as prices rise, demand and output fall, and vice versa. Now, cutting taxes so that the government runs at a deficit is like like deep-discounting the price of government; selling at a loss, in fact. It stimulates demand; people are getting a great bargain on government so they want more of it. Just like when Microsoft gives away Internet Explorer, do you think it is trying to get smaller? Of course we have this massive debt building up, but people ignore it just like they ignore the buildup of their personal credit card balance.

So if you want less demand for government, increase the price. Balance the budget or even tax to a surplus. People will realize they're paying through the nose for government services and they won't look like such a good deal. They'll tell their elected representatives to take some time off and stop wasting money with silly projects like funding preschool education or trying to pry F-82s away from the Air Force Museum. Output (i.e. government) will scale back and taxes will drop again.

See, Reagan honestly tried to downsize government from the supply side by cutting taxes to cut off its air supply. He failed because he didn't reckon that the government has a really good credit rating and can always find the money to provide enough services to meet public demand. Until, presumably, at some point all the loans are called in and catastrophic failure occurs. Some of you act like you want to see what that would be like, but trust me, you really don't. Reagan helped make it happen for the USSR and it wasn't pretty for them.

Now W, our current president, realized that the economy has to be managed from the demand side but he couldn't get away with raising taxes, so he got a great idea. He realized that another way to reduce demand and output, besides raising price, is to reduce the quality of the product so people will want less. He set up the most corrupt, incompetent, and threatening to our civil liberties of any government in U.S. history to try to convince people how bad government was. It was a brilliant plan, almost perfectly executed. If it weren't for a few judges and justices with a sentimental fondness for habeus rights, it would have been a total home run. And McCain, to judge from his "handling" of the financial crisis and his choice of running mate, was going to carry this strategy even further. But even though W's government was the best argument against government ever made, it still didn't work. People saw through the scheme and realized that not all government is bad, only this government. So they just voted for a product quality improvement.

So we're left with raising taxes, and letting the market for government services determine the price and size of government, as the only way to shrink government. And it's going to be extra tough, because the O-man is about to give us probably the most competent government we've seen in our lifetimes, so the price will have to be really high to make it seem like a bad deal. Do I really think it will work? No, not if the goal is to shrink government. Because I suspect that the demand curve for government services is pretty flat -- people will demand about the same amount of government we have now, even if it's priced (i.e. taxed) at or above its true cost. The result, I'm afraid, may be too much government and too much taxes for the taste of many of you. Sorry about that. It just means you're out of step with America. But hey, there are some countries you could move to with governments the size you want. Just make sure you take your Hummer with you, because they don't have any roads there.

August

August:

You have written a very analytical and scholarly thesis here. You must be a PHD in english, at least I'm impressed.

So as fascinating as what you've written is, is it accurate?

You are saying that W used reverse psychology to create an end result? Are you serious? It seems pretty strange, because I thought professionals and leaders usually are straightforward they do what they say, and their mission is as they say. Sowhat your saying here is that Bush's mission was a polar opposite to what he did? In otherwords, he did something with the intent of getting an opposite reaction. Are you sure he was this sophisticated? It sounds almost like a conspiracy theory to me.

well, there have been right wingers saying that what they should do is spend so much taht we can't help but start turning the lights off--and they've been saying it for years. THe idea is to bankrupt us or bring us so close to it that only te most absolutely necessary institutions remain in governemnt hands.

I think the idea is insane myself, but then, I think most right wing/anarchist theory is insane. I could be wrong. maybe.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Come to think of it, it sounds way insane.

It's all part of his "stratee gerree" watch this its in his own words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwZSQrDuYzo

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"

A2C, first the war in Iraq is certainly not over, we had 30 soldiers killed over there last month. We still have about 150,000 of our young men and women over there, not to even count all the civilian and non military contract men there which I have read is almost equal? to the number of soldiers, thus a total of over 250,000. As long as we are there some of these people will continue to die or be maimed. Now 30 a month or 3 a month may not seem like many compared to the losses we had in the past, but to the Mother or the Son or the Wife of the one dead it may be a big deal. And of course there are the civilian casualties.

This topic is about the economy. We have been spending a $billion a month on Bush's war. It is certainly a major factor in our budget and our deficit and part of the topic of where we can cut spending. Bringing the troops home will not save the entire amount of money, but it would be big step.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Definitions:
Marxist (plural Marxists)
One that believes in or follows the ideals of Marxism.

Socialist
An advocate of socialism.

Marxism
The doctrines of Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels on economics, politics, and society. They include the notion of economic determinism — that political and social structures are determined by the economic conditions of people. Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned (communism), a system to be reached as an inevitable result of the struggle between the leaders of capitalism and the workers.

Socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(Definitions borrowed from Wikipedia and Websters)

August, I have to call you on that. I'm not replacing "liberal" with Marxist at all. Also, it's not very nice to say something is gibberish without backing it up. I say lets do it! I think if you're really honest and do the research, you'll find that the things going on that I've mentioned ARE part of the plans and strategy that groups like the Frankfurt School established for their efforts in countries such as ours. It's a form of slowly boiling a F R O G (That's the first time I've been edited! F R O G = french ). You can't do it all at once, but if you introduce it gradually, you may succeed. Examples of this in other countries can be found.
I don't necessarily think that muddyboots or you really want a totally Communistic system, but the terminology and language you are using is very similar to what these systems teach and desire the people to believe.

Oh, and for all your fancy words, I don't believe that increased taxation will end up with a smaller government. I believe that the increase in government is directly related to the morality and discipline of the people of the country. That's why the education system and the media are key tools of Marxists in the initial stages of a revolution (and they are very patient and have now been succeeding for a long time now). Expectations can be created and the masses can be trained to look to the state for everything.
As a William Penn once said - "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.