What should we do about bin Laden?

I think what it said Sam was "turn right onto local road". That is the term most mapping and GPS programs use for roads that are not routed by either state or federal numbers.

I find myself pretty often turning onto a road that is immediately adjacent to the rr tracks.

Or even onto the tracks for a ways in industrial areas.

About a month ago I was up in Chicago maneuvering around such an area coming up a bank and making a tight turn across a spur track and about the time I got astraddle of the tracks I heard a blood curdling blast from an oncoming train.

Turns out he was on the main tracks about 50 feet away, but he got my attention.

Sherm,

Ya gotta look me up when you are in Chicago. You still owe me biscuits and gravy, but if necessary, I'll buy. We'll call it a redistributive policy.


Stephanie,

I agree with Ziggy on this one. The safest place to be vis a vis a govenment that wants you is out in the open where others can see you as well. I don't think that "they are coming to get us" (yet) but let's say they were. Wouldn't you want the utilities/local newspapers/neighbors/phone companies knowing exactly where you were, or if not, that you were indeed missing? It seems that such a condition would make government nefariousness more difficult.

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

Well Mike I have not forgotten. I am still good for the b&G.

Do you still get back to wv any?

A bit, yes. A friend of mine is by Wheeling, and a recent job change has freed up a lot of time. If gas ever gets below, say, two kidneys per tank, I'll have to get out there.

It's a mean sliding scale indeed, isn't it Sherm? You either have all the time you want or all the money you want, but never both simultaneously:)

Well if we could ever get this republican bunch out I will probably buy my own truck and have a little more flexibility to take a day or two off.

But I don't have enough confidence now.

The bottom could literally fall out at any time, it seems to me.

Record trade deficit, record budget deficit, etc.

Not a healthy situation, imo.

Uhh, Sherm, that's the rhetoric that won the 2006 election, and how have things gone since then?

Well Mike you got me there. What can I say?


I guess it's just like shade tree mechanicing when you start trying to fix the economy.

Change one part and if that dont work change something else.

So we changed the Congress and that didnt work so now we need to change the White House.

Do you have a better idea?

shermangeneral wrote:Well Mike you got me there. What can I say?


I guess it's just like shade tree mechanicing when you start trying to fix the economy.

Change one part and if that dont work change something else.

So we changed the Congress and that didnt work so now we need to change the White House.

Do you have a better idea?

Both Hillary and BO have proposed spending 200,000,000.00 ABOVE what GWB proposed. How is increasing spending by that much going to fix the economy? By raising taxes? The stimulus PROVES that money is better off in the hands of the American people and businesses then in the governments hands. democrats, both the big and little d kind must agree because they jumped right on the bandwagon, unless of course they were only jumping on for votes. At any rate, it proves that what moves the economy is the individual, not government.

The best way to fix the economy is for government to stop trying to fix the economy and let it correct itself. That and across the board reduction in spending.

Well Aaron is that what you might call the Hoover approach.?

Just sit back and hope things get better?

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron is that what you might call the Hoover approach.?

Just sit back and hope things get better?

Really Sherm? You sure about that?

Didn't Hoover spend more government money in 1930 in an attempt to revive the economy then was spent 1929. And wasn't the stock market back to early 1929 levels by spring 1930. And then didn't Hoover sign into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which many economist believe turned the stock market crash into the great depression and that one act strangled global trade and led to tariff’s on American imports by other countries and did much more harm then it did good.

Hoover's do nothing government intervention did more harm then it did good. Had he actually done nothing and allowed free trade to correct itself, the depression likely wouldn't have been as severe or lasted as long.

Sherm,

I don't want our leaders to sit back and do nothing. I want them to reduce the size of government and cut spending. I'd also like to see them retake control of our currency. I'd like to see them perform the duties the Constitution outlines for them.

btw.....I hear what you guys are saying about being "open". I do think I'm open. Both of our Senators and my Congresswoman hear from me on a fairly regular basis. I also write letters, email and even call state and local officials.

I draw the line at a tracking device.

Here is what we should do about bin Laden and everybody else who threatens the United States.

We should leave the UN immediately. We should say that we have been the world's nanny and policeman for far too long, and that we will not follow world opinion when it comes to defending our children from those who threaten us. We should also say that we are going to be getting out of other country's lives as well, so as not to engender any more animosity than we need to.

well I disagree.

I say let's all just try to get along.

I agree we should try to get along. I am vehemently opposed to preemptive wars. I am fully in favor of getting our big fat intrusive noses out of the internal operations of other nations. I fully support US withdrawal from the UN.

shermangeneral wrote:well I disagree.

I say let's all just try to get along.

YUP, if we all don't agree to just try to get along, ......... then all the trough-feeders and flim-flammers will not be trying, trying, trying ........ to get our money to pay for their haphazard and futile attempts of trying to get along.

They would all be out of a job in a heartbeat and that would not be good ..... for them.



.

SheikBen wrote:Here is what we should do about bin Laden and everybody else who threatens the United States.

We should leave the UN immediately. We should say that we have been the world's nanny and policeman for far too long, and that we will not follow world opinion when it comes to defending our children from those who threaten us. We should also say that we are going to be getting out of other country's lives as well, so as not to engender any more animosity than we need to.

Very sound idea, I am sure that would help with economic recovery.

Welcome, ecofriek (I may have welcomed you elsewhere but I have a bad memory).

What would you have done about the economy?

The 1st thing we should next do is ....... forget about bin Laden.

Worrying and talking about him is akin to worrying and talking about Saddam Hussian.

ecofriek wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Here is what we should do about bin Laden and everybody else who threatens the United States.

We should leave the UN immediately. We should say that we have been the world's nanny and policeman for far too long, and that we will not follow world opinion when it comes to defending our children from those who threaten us. We should also say that we are going to be getting out of other country's lives as well, so as not to engender any more animosity than we need to.

Very sound idea, I am sure that would help with economic recovery.

Right now, the one area of our economy that is thriving due to the weak dollar is exports. Our trade deficit is actually shrinkihng so how would leaving the UN and pissing of half the rest of the world to the point that they stop purchasing American products improve the economy?

It would save the taxpayers billions of dollars each and every year, for starters. All that money we provide for the UN. All the expense related to sending staff to the UN.

That's not going to help the economy now. And if pulling out would lead to massive blockade of American exports, how would that help the economy?

How would that lead to a "massive blockade" of US imports? Who is going to be so incensed we're not kissing butt at the UN they are going to stop trading with us? China? Perhaps we'll stop buying toxic toys and tainted food from them.

Some tax relief will help the economy now, btw. So wouldn't using any savings realized to pay off the national debt.

Sorry Stephanie, I didn't realize there was a hanging question. My bad.

First, us buying toxic toys from China is not exports. That's imports.

I think our withdrawl from the UN would lead to Europeans and Asians viewing us in a different light and lead them to start manufacturing and purchasing more of the 1.16 trillion dollars in goods that we now export.

Nuclear reactors, boilers and machinery parts are the number 1 exported item to the rest of the world with machined parts second. Based on that, it would be hard for most other parts of the world to cut us off cold turkey as the investment required to manufacture those items is high.

So I don't think it would lead to an initial hit on our exports, especially now with the dollar so low, but I do think it would lead to an attitude change in Europe and Asia which would lead to them investing in the capabilities to manufacture much of what they import now. That's worse then a short term blockade or boycott of American goods as once they start manufacturing those parts and supplies, we wouldn't get that business back.

So overall, I don't think pulling out of the UN woulld initially help or hurt our economy but in the long run, I do believe it would have a more negative effect then a positive one on our overall economy.