Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Subscribe
15490  15990  16390  16440  16480  16486  16487  16488  16489  16490  16491  16492  16493  16494  16500  16540  16590  16990  17490 
Page 16490 of 20173
Go to
Quote: At this point, you blaming Pelosi & Reid is just as bad as anyone on the Left blaming Bush for anything.

I think this 2104 economy is way better than what we had in 2008.

*The stock market is 10,000 points higher.
* Businesses and & Banks aren't rushing to D.C. to get bailout loans.
*The defect is shrinking.
*The economy is adding jobs, not losing them at a rate of 500,000+ per month.


Those are just a few of the differences that can be attributed to either party, or Administration. Give President Bush the credit for it, if you want to. Give Clinton, or Obama the blame. Who cares? This economy is better though.

I would "Back the PAC" no matter who they supported. Unfortunately because it'a the money that talks in Washington. Labels, political affiliations, and all the bickering back and forth is just for show.


Is it ok if I bring Stella?
Up until 2008 the economy was doing well enough especially when compared to the dismal "recovery" these past 6 years have shown us. GWB can hardly be blamed for the housing crisis that caused 2008. Any honest assessment of history will show that. That's why GWB will be treated better in the history books than BHO will, unless they're written by academics who ignore the facts. In general: GWB - bad decision to go into Iraq. BHO - bad at everything else, except protecting the environment and changing his views in favor of gay marriage for political benefit.
My point was never it's not better now than then. My point is it's not as good as it should be. Yes Wall Street has been making out like a bandit because the Fed is creating trillions out of thin air and pumping up the banks and Brokerage Houses. Joe and Betty six-pack are not benefiting from that. We are adding jobs but not enough to keep up with the rate of population growth. We need 250K jobs a month just to break even. The only reason the U3 number is below 7% is the Labor Participation Rate is as low has its ever been. We are adding government jobs and part time service jobs.

Economies are cyclical. Had we done absolutely nothing in 2008 the economy would have recovered eventually on its own because of millions of people making free choices driving the market. Had we followed the blueprint provided us in 1982 we would have grown out of the recession much sooner than now. By following the polices of the 30s we have exacerbated the situation and we are still dragging an anchor.

And yes you can bring Stella, that girl from St. Paulie, and if you can find it, some Badonk-A-Dunkel. Oh, and if Carl shows I'll be sure to have some of this on hand.
Quote: FIIGMO we could argue this all day and night and we are venturing away from the original question but I think you are mistaken. The media spent 8 years down talking the economy calling it a recession when we had over 3% growth and unemployment at 5%. It's no wonder you and others still blame GWB for the economy, it's been drummed into you for years. Look at the data though and you will see he had a robust economy and job market until the 2006 elections put the Wicked Witch of the West and Dirty Harry in charge of Congress. The job losses and economic slowdown began then.

We really need an APC beer summit somewhere. I vote 80s basement.
Yeah listening to fixed news I can see your point... During this time frame the connected expanded the gap between the workers and Wall Street more than at any other time in history. That 3% benefitted who? Wall Street bought the politicians, the Biah Supreme Court (today) is rewarding Koch brothers and their ilk all the way to the bank, bending the rules and laws and politicians to expand the gap even further. This is not left or right. It is about what is right for our kids.... Careful of the data you use it is just that data. Look at the reality of your earning power as a pilot versus that of RA and the rest... And we cannot afford politicians in office with their separate health care, protected retirements for life with COLA. My vote will go to those that look out for all of us long term. Yes it is slim pickings at the moment for a non corrupt politicians and that needs to change...

If you know how to do that I am all ears!
Quote: What does she look like and will she display some underboob?
She's hot & I think so.
Quote: My point was never it's not better now than then. My point is it's not as good as it should be. Yes Wall Street has been making out like a bandit because the Fed is creating trillions out of thin air and pumping up the banks and Brokerage Houses. Joe and Betty six-pack are not benefiting from that. We are adding jobs but not enough to keep up with the rate of population growth. We need 250K jobs a month just to break even. The only reason the U3 number is below 7% is the Labor Participation Rate is as low has its ever been. We are adding government jobs and part time service jobs.

Economies are cyclical. Had we done absolutely nothing in 2008 the economy would have recovered eventually on its own because of millions of people making free choices driving the market. Had we followed the blueprint provided us in 1982 we would have grown out of the recession much sooner than now. By following the polices of the 30s we have exacerbated the situation and we are still dragging an anchor.

And yes you can bring Stella, that girl from St. Paulie, and if you can find it, some Badonk-A-Dunkel. Oh, and if Carl shows I'll be sure to have some of this on hand.

With this government, nothing is as good as it should be. We get it, because we allow for it to be paid for.


Drink order -- noted.
To show this is a neutral equal opportunity beer summit they'll be this for Johnson, PG, Slow, et al.



For Bar there will be this.



And for all the guys based in SLC we will have plenty of

Quote: Up until 2008 the economy was doing well enough especially when compared to the dismal "recovery" these past 6 years have shown us. GWB can hardly be blamed for the housing crisis that caused 2008. Any honest assessment of history will show that. That's why GWB will be treated better in the history books than BHO will, unless they're written by academics who ignore the facts. In general: GWB - bad decision to go into Iraq. BHO - bad at everything else, except protecting the environment and changing his views in favor of gay marriage for political benefit.
Ok, Gunship. We will have to discuss that at the beer summit.
Quote: What about the posts in response to your false assertions Starcheck? Do their interference in your personal narrative (and the ALPA PAC's narrative) make a dent?



OK, I did. This is from the list of non-incumbents to which ALPA PAC supported financially for House and Senate seats:

2007-2008: Democrats 21...Republicsns 0

2009-2010: Democrats 24...Republicans 3

2011-2012: Democrats 40...Republicans 5

2013-2014: Democrats 21...Republicans 1

My statements that ALPA and the ALPA PAC are left wing organizations and not at all "pilot partisan" stands.

Carl
That's great that you know how to cherry pick the list. Here's the link for the list donations to the incumbents. It surely doesn't look as skewed as the non-incumbents. I guess being TOTALLY forthcoming doesn't fit with your argument?

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/dep...useInc2014.pdf
Quote: Oh, and if Carl shows I'll be sure to have some of this on hand.









Carl
Quote: That's great that you know how to cherry pick the list.
It's not a cherry pick. The non-incumbents list is the important one because it shows everyone what you want for the future of the House and Senate. It's very clear what the ALPA PAC wants the House and Senate to look like:

Quote: OK, I did. This is from the list of non-incumbents to which ALPA PAC supported financially for House and Senate seats:

2007-2008: Democrats 21...Republicsns 0

2009-2010: Democrats 24...Republicans 3

2011-2012: Democrats 40...Republicans 5

2013-2014: Democrats 21...Republicans 1
Quote: Here's the link for the list donations to the incumbents. It surely doesn't look as skewed as the non-incumbents.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/dep...useInc2014.pdf
Yes, it shows ALPA PAC paid money to 135 Democrat incumbents versus 92 Republican incumbents. But again, giving money to incumbents is just hedging your bets which doesn't show what your political leanings are. That's determined by who you support to unseat incumbents. In the case of ALPA PAC, it's almost total support for new Democrats and almost no support for new Republicans.

Quote: I guess being TOTALLY forthcoming doesn't fit with your argument?
I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us is trying to deceive the membership. They can look at the lists and decide for themselves.

Carl
15490  15990  16390  16440  16480  16486  16487  16488  16489  16490  16491  16492  16493  16494  16500  16540  16590  16990  17490 
Page 16490 of 20173
Go to