You Really Have To Love This Guy!
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
mmarsh, buying stocks stimulate economic growth; economic growth stimulate new jobs, better wages and expansion. A stock increase from $15 to 20$ for a company is generated by the demand in the marked for their particular products; investors invest their money in promising companies and this in turn create new factories and industrial sites = new jobs.
If a company fall on the exchange, the signals from the marked are no good news and people pull their money out before the stocks hit rock bottom on the exchange.
This is regulate by companies QTD and YTD reports and their accounts for the last year - which in turn indicate the credit rankings of the companies.
I'll grant you it is complicated, but I think you are not on the right track as far as I can see. You can check out the stock value history of a few large international companies and compare it with their expansions, and you'll see what I mean.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
It appears that there has been a case of revisionist history where Reagan and Clinton's economic history is concerned.
Under Reagan, his 'Trickle-down (or) Supply Side Economics' resulted in one of the largest deficits in history, and was only bypassed by GW Bush's 2002 deficit.
Under Clinton, balanced budgets with a sound approach to spending cuts, resulted the largest budget SURPLUS in over 30 years - it resulted in the added benefit, of seeing the National Debt begin to shrink for the first time in the modern era as part of the surplus was applied to reduce the debt.
So which President's economic policy was the kindest to the American economy ... I am quite positive which program I prefer.
Under Reagan, his 'Trickle-down (or) Supply Side Economics' resulted in one of the largest deficits in history, and was only bypassed by GW Bush's 2002 deficit.
Under Clinton, balanced budgets with a sound approach to spending cuts, resulted the largest budget SURPLUS in over 30 years - it resulted in the added benefit, of seeing the National Debt begin to shrink for the first time in the modern era as part of the surplus was applied to reduce the debt.
So which President's economic policy was the kindest to the American economy ... I am quite positive which program I prefer.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Until you, nobody mentioned the reduction in the military ... the discussion was all about economic programs and under that discussion, I'd take Clinton any day. At least there was a surplus and the National Debt was being reduced.
If you wish to limit the discussion to just the military side of the argument, then I would have to say that under Reagan we began to rebuild the military. Where your argument is weak though, is that the reduction of our military was already underway when Clinton took office ... he just continued the program and went too far (my opinion).
You must go back to 1968 with the election of Richard Nixon and into the end of June in 1974 to find where force reduction was started with a vengeance. From a high of 1.57 million soldiers at his election to a low of 785,000 soldiers ... Nixon presided over one of the largest force reductions in the modern era.
Gerald Ford continued the cuts but at a much slower pace that Jimmy Carter brought to dangerously low levels. When Reagan decided to play the "tear down this wall" card, he had spurred the growth of the military forces in an upward direction for the first time since the end of the Vietnam War. George H.W. Bush allowed slight reductions to occur on his watch due to the ending of the Cold War because the number of dedicated troops in Germany was reduced significantly. By the time that Clinton came to office, a minor draw-down was in progress and Slick Willy hurried it along as part and parcel of force reduction and attempts to cut military spending and balancing the budget.
We are now at a crossroads where we need to decide just how big (or small), our military is going to be when everything is said and done. By relying on the Reserve Component of the military to carry out active operations, government experts and military experts seem to be saying that the days when we can depend on 'citizen soldiers' of the draft vintage and variety, can no longer be relied on for the necessary skills necessary to the modern military and modern weapons.
Where we are going to end up as far as manning levels, is anybodies guess. For sure though, most people are coming to the realisation that the levels are going to have to bigger than they currently are. The pace of the operations in the Middle East are placing a great strain on our soldiers that is seeing the same soldier spending two, three and even four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior Chief
Banned
Go back further for the reduction in the military. After every conflict we have been associated with there has been a drawdown. There have been times when we barely had enough men and equipment to do the job we needed to do in peacetime let alone war.
This trend will not be changed in our lifetime, there will always be doves calling for the dismantling of the military after a conflict.
In the past we had more patriotic people and had a well of people to chose from to enhance the military, usually via the draft but volunteers as well. Now we depend fully on volunteers and the number of people that will committ to the defense of their country is greatly reduced.
How many of you old timers would be willing to drop your civilian jobs and go back into the military? There wouldn't be as many as you might think!
Oh well, I think I'm done here.
Good bye all.
This trend will not be changed in our lifetime, there will always be doves calling for the dismantling of the military after a conflict.
In the past we had more patriotic people and had a well of people to chose from to enhance the military, usually via the draft but volunteers as well. Now we depend fully on volunteers and the number of people that will committ to the defense of their country is greatly reduced.
How many of you old timers would be willing to drop your civilian jobs and go back into the military? There wouldn't be as many as you might think!
Oh well, I think I'm done here.
Good bye all.
mmarsh
Active member
Clinton military spending.
First of all Bones is right, Clinton didnt cut DOD nearly as much as his predecessor.
Clinton didnt start the military cutbacks, that started under G.H.W Bush. These cuts were implimented when Clinton was President. So the worst you can say is Clinton failed to prevent the Bush cuts from taking place. Here is the breakdown
The Bush Administration started with $375 Billion DOD Budget in 1989 inherited from Reagan. When they left in 1994 that was down to $267 Billion. The most ardent person in the budget slashing measures was none other than Dick Cheney. Cheney cut military spending in every year of the Bush presidency except 1991 (Gulf War), a 25% reduction.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/pol...e_cuts_underway_as_Clinton_took_office+.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Clinton also did some trimming, to $255 Billion in 1997.
http://www.global-defence.com/1997/ClintonDefence.html
And here is the part Clinton Bashers never want to mention.
In 1997, Clinton passed a $124 Billion increase (about $23 Billion a year for 5 years) in order to fight Terrorism.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...ld_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
So to Sum up
Bush from $375 to $267 Billion
Clinton from $267 to $255 BUT added $124 Billion making Clintons last DOD budget when he left office $379 Billion.
So When Clinton LEFT office his budget was equal to that of Reagan, and remember this was a PEACE-TIME DOD Budget.
First of all Bones is right, Clinton didnt cut DOD nearly as much as his predecessor.
Clinton didnt start the military cutbacks, that started under G.H.W Bush. These cuts were implimented when Clinton was President. So the worst you can say is Clinton failed to prevent the Bush cuts from taking place. Here is the breakdown
The Bush Administration started with $375 Billion DOD Budget in 1989 inherited from Reagan. When they left in 1994 that was down to $267 Billion. The most ardent person in the budget slashing measures was none other than Dick Cheney. Cheney cut military spending in every year of the Bush presidency except 1991 (Gulf War), a 25% reduction.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/pol...e_cuts_underway_as_Clinton_took_office+.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Clinton also did some trimming, to $255 Billion in 1997.
http://www.global-defence.com/1997/ClintonDefence.html
And here is the part Clinton Bashers never want to mention.
In 1997, Clinton passed a $124 Billion increase (about $23 Billion a year for 5 years) in order to fight Terrorism.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...ld_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
So to Sum up
Bush from $375 to $267 Billion
Clinton from $267 to $255 BUT added $124 Billion making Clintons last DOD budget when he left office $379 Billion.
So When Clinton LEFT office his budget was equal to that of Reagan, and remember this was a PEACE-TIME DOD Budget.
Last edited:
Senior Chief
Banned
Just how much did GHWB cut the defense budget? The very first rounds of BRAC were started while he was in office and that was well after Desert Storm was over. Clinton carried on and caused many more cuts, in dollars there were more cuts by Clinton than Bush
mmarsh
Active member
Sorry, but thats not accurate...
GHWB ordered Cheney to reduce the DOD by 25%. He went from Reagans $375 Billion and ended $267 Billion. Thats a reduction of $108 Billion within 4 years. The reason Clinton gets accused for this is that actual cutbacks took place during the Clinton Administration. The worst one could say was that Clinton didnt reverse the Bush policy. Clinton DID provide cuts of his own but it was a paltry $8 Billion and more importantly nobody ever credits him with the $124 Billion he added back into the Budget.
GHWB ordered Cheney to reduce the DOD by 25%. He went from Reagans $375 Billion and ended $267 Billion. Thats a reduction of $108 Billion within 4 years. The reason Clinton gets accused for this is that actual cutbacks took place during the Clinton Administration. The worst one could say was that Clinton didnt reverse the Bush policy. Clinton DID provide cuts of his own but it was a paltry $8 Billion and more importantly nobody ever credits him with the $124 Billion he added back into the Budget.
Senior Chief
Banned
Budgetary practices
The DoD budget faced Cheney with his most immediate and pressing problem when he came to the Pentagon. President Bush had already said publicly that the proposed FY 1990 Defense budget of more than $300 billion had to be cut immediately by $6.3 billion, and soon after Cheney began work the president increased the amount to $10 billion. Cheney recognized the necessity of cutting the budget and downsizing the military establishment, but he favored a cautious approach. In making decisions on the FY 1990 budget, the secretary had to confront the wish list of each of the services. The Air Force wanted to buy 312 B-2 stealth bombers at over $500 million each; the Marine Corps wanted 12 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor helicopters, $136 million each; the Army wanted some $240 million in FY 1990 to move toward production of the LHX, a new reconnaissance and attack helicopter, to cost $33 billion eventually; and the Navy wanted 5 Aegis guided-missile destroyers, at a cost of $3.6 billion. What direction to go with ballistic missiles also posed difficult choices. One option was to build 50 more MX missiles to join the 50 already on hand, at a cost of about $10 billion. A decision had to be made on how to base the MX—whether on railroad cars or in some other mode. Another option was to build 500 single-warhead Midgetman missiles, still in the development stage, at an estimated cost of $24 billion.
In April, Cheney recommended to Bush that the United States move ahead to deploy the 50 MXs and discontinue the Midgetman project. While not unalterably opposed to the Midgetman, Cheney questioned how to pay for it in a time of shrinking defense budgets. Cheney's plan encountered opposition both inside the administration and in Congress. Bush decided not to take Cheney's advice; he said he would seek funding to put the MXs on railroad cars by the mid-1990s and to develop the Midgetman, with a goal of 250 to 500.
Secretary of Defense Cheney delivering a speech before the launch of a new destroyer.
When Cheney's FY 1990 budget came before Congress in the summer of 1989, the Senate Armed Services Committee made only minor amendments, but the House Armed Services Committee cut the strategic accounts and favored the V-22, F-14D, and other projects not high on Cheney's list. The House and Senate in November 1989 finally settled on a budget somewhere between the preferences of the administration and the House committee. Congress avoided a final decision on the MX/Midgetman issue by authorizing a $1 billion missile modernization account to be apportioned as the president saw fit. Funding for the F-14D was to continue for another year, providing 18 more aircraft in the program. Congress authorized only research funds for the V-22 and cut SDI funding more than $1 billion, much to the displeasure of President Bush.
In subsequent years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office. In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized. When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991. Sen. Sam Nunn of the Senate Armed Services Committee said that the 5-year cuts ought to be $85 billion, and Rep. Les Aspin of the House Armed Services Committee put the figure at $91 billion.
Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
The V-22 question caused friction between Cheney and Congress throughout his tenure. DoD spent some of the money Congress appropriated to develop the aircraft, but congressional sources accused Cheney, who continued to oppose the Osprey, of violating the law by not moving ahead as Congress had directed. Cheney argued that building and testing the prototype Osprey would cost more than the amount appropriated. In the spring of 1992 several congressional supporters of the V-22 threatened to take Cheney to court over the issue. A little later, in the face of suggestions from congressional Republicans that Cheney's opposition to the Osprey was hurting President Bush's reelection campaign, especially in Texas and Pennsylvania where the aircraft would be built, Cheney relented and suggested spending $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop it. He made clear that he personally still opposed the Osprey and favored a less costly alternative.
Post some links to validate your claims!
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Call Me And I Will Answer The Call .....
To answer one of the questions posed by one of our members:
I WOULD GO BACK ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A NEW YORK MINUTE IF THEY WOULD TAKE ME.
The problem though, is that I no longer qualify for military service because of medical problems.
I suffer from high blood pressure, Adult Onset Type II Diabetes, high cholesterol, obesity due to a variety of factors beyond my control, my knees and hips are shot from too many years of at sea operations and football injuries when a young man, and I am pushing age 62 ... my Social Security check begins arriving next January (2007).
BUT ... even with all of that, I miss serving with my old shipmates and WOULD answer the call without hesitation even with my decrepitude.
It hurts that so many of my ex-friends, neighbors and old shipmates have died because of GW's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The count presently stands at seven ... that means that as I was going about my retirement from active duty, the world changed and 7 people that I knew and respected, were killed. Countless others have been injured from a variety of reasons ... not all of the injuries were combat related.
I will NOT argue the right or wrong of GW's decisions ... suffice it to say that I did NOT ... and ... do NOT agree with them ... but ... would still answer the call if it were issued.
To answer one of the questions posed by one of our members:
I WOULD GO BACK ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A NEW YORK MINUTE IF THEY WOULD TAKE ME.
The problem though, is that I no longer qualify for military service because of medical problems.
I suffer from high blood pressure, Adult Onset Type II Diabetes, high cholesterol, obesity due to a variety of factors beyond my control, my knees and hips are shot from too many years of at sea operations and football injuries when a young man, and I am pushing age 62 ... my Social Security check begins arriving next January (2007).
BUT ... even with all of that, I miss serving with my old shipmates and WOULD answer the call without hesitation even with my decrepitude.
It hurts that so many of my ex-friends, neighbors and old shipmates have died because of GW's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The count presently stands at seven ... that means that as I was going about my retirement from active duty, the world changed and 7 people that I knew and respected, were killed. Countless others have been injured from a variety of reasons ... not all of the injuries were combat related.
I will NOT argue the right or wrong of GW's decisions ... suffice it to say that I did NOT ... and ... do NOT agree with them ... but ... would still answer the call if it were issued.
Senior Chief
Banned
The only difference between you and me is that I'm only 55. I have all of the same malady's that you have, they are all under control.
I do not agree with all of what the president has done, but I still back him and the effort currently at hand.
You, being over 60 are basically fully retired, I still have 5 years of recall potential left. I wold lose a considerable amount of pay but I would still go.
Look, losing people in war is bad. Something that has to be considered is the people that could be lost with another attack. There is a high probability that al Queda is planning another attack and a large one at that.
More later if I'm not gone.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Isn't life a real bummer Senior. I do NOT remember if you served in an an active combat zone ... my contribution was Vietnam and then Granada.
If there had NEVER been another reason to send any young man or woman into harms way, I could have died a happy person.
I guess it just wasn't meant to happen ... now I am sitting here remembering the seven people that I knew and respected that are no longer with us ... and ... I can't help thinking that God has a very perverse sense of humor. You and I would go into harms way without a moment of thought, and here we sit .... hundreds of thousands of Americans believe that this is a 'war' that should never have happened. ('War' because it isn't a war - never declared as such ... I guess this one will take an act of Congress to categorize it as a war. That is what it took for Vietnam).
I will hope that the recall doesn't land on your doorstep - you and I have done our part for God and country.
If there had NEVER been another reason to send any young man or woman into harms way, I could have died a happy person.
I guess it just wasn't meant to happen ... now I am sitting here remembering the seven people that I knew and respected that are no longer with us ... and ... I can't help thinking that God has a very perverse sense of humor. You and I would go into harms way without a moment of thought, and here we sit .... hundreds of thousands of Americans believe that this is a 'war' that should never have happened. ('War' because it isn't a war - never declared as such ... I guess this one will take an act of Congress to categorize it as a war. That is what it took for Vietnam).
I will hope that the recall doesn't land on your doorstep - you and I have done our part for God and country.
Senior Chief
Banned
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/your-military-experience-service-t7084.html
Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT.
I lost several friends in Vietnam, I lost a couple of friends in Desert Storm (non battle condidtions) and I lost one friend and one family member in the attack on the Pentagon.
Life is hard, then you die. We do not pick the place or circumstances regardless of if we are in war or not. To avoid war to save lives brings the conditions that we won't defend ourselves and that is one of the biggest problems we face. More doves and fewer hawks and we end up subjectated by someone that has no fear of death.
Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT.
I lost several friends in Vietnam, I lost a couple of friends in Desert Storm (non battle condidtions) and I lost one friend and one family member in the attack on the Pentagon.
Life is hard, then you die. We do not pick the place or circumstances regardless of if we are in war or not. To avoid war to save lives brings the conditions that we won't defend ourselves and that is one of the biggest problems we face. More doves and fewer hawks and we end up subjectated by someone that has no fear of death.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I have NEVER advocated that we sit on the sidelines when we have been attacked. My problem is attacking a nation that NEVER attacked us, and so far hasn't been shown that it was as big a danger to us as it was accused of being.
Today (9-12-06), the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that AGAIN proves that AlQaeda had NO ties to Saddam ... as a matter of fact, it now seems that Saddam and his intelligence people were trying to capture the #2 AlQaeda leader and missed him by just hours. Saddam didn't seem to have any more use for AlQaeda than we did.
Before I stand by and see our nation subjugated by a foreign power, even though I am fat and not in great health, I would take up arms and meet them in the streets of our country wherever they are. If they think that terrorism is only a one way street, they better go back to the drawing board.
Senior Chief
Banned
Chief,
I got reamed for using caps and bolding to emphasize a point. It isn't a very good tactic.
The report seems to contradict information I read in 2002 and 2003, but far be it from me to contradict the revisionist reports now out.
If you will remember the small incident in 1991 when there was a UN enforced No-Fly zone over portions of Iraq. The Iraqi's fired on our planes, and planes of other nations. That was an act of war.
What happened to the reports that showed evidence of Saddam redirecting money from the Oil for Food program? It now appears that everyone seems to feel that information was something that never happened. But again, why contradict a new report that in effect revises history?
The Senate Intelligence Committee, now there is a real contradiction in terms.......Senate and Intelligence used in the same title. I'm sure all partisan politics were put aside in determining what went into the report!
It seems as if even when traces of Sarin was found in Iraq in quantities enough to prove that the gas was present and possibly manufactured should have been proof enough for most, what gets me is that Saddam used Sarin against his own people and the "powers that want to be" have negated that as a WMD.
Even if Saddam was not in bed with Bin Laden he was still a potentially dangerous threat to many nations including the U.S.