# Hail to the Chief



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bring in the new and ring out the old.

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I wish him luck....

But one thing that kind of chaps my rear is that why spend so much on this Party today? I mean if he really wanted to show concern and make a huge impression on the US.....just get sworn in and then get right to "work". I mean since our country is in the state that it is this would have been awesome and would have swayed many peoples thinking. It would have made history in itself. But no spend millions of $$$ for a party.

Now I know that Obama had little to do with this party more like his political allies and political party and what not but we as tax payers in the end will pay for this bash when the money could have been used elsewhere.....just look at the security for this......almost tripled any other inaguration. Just my two pennies.

But I wish him luck.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, a black pastor voiced the same opinion as you on the news last night. He could have come out smelling like a rose on this one. Just think what the opinion of him would have been if he declined and said save the money for the needy. It would have been impossible to knock him of his throne for the next four years.

Who was the nut job with the prayer "let the yellow be mellow, let the red get ahead, let the white embrace what is right etc."? I took that as offensively racist.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Plainsman what is wrong with you! It's only racism if it is ment for a group other than white!! :eyeroll:

I have a dream too, I dreamed America woke the heck up!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The thing I don't think this country is seeing is the reverse discrimination.....

Yes I know this is a historic event with the First Black president.....but why the big party. The president before or the one before that did not have this much hoopla surrounding it. I mean ESPN Sportscenter had specials on it today. Isn't ESPN a sports network....isn't Sportscenter concerning todays scores and highlights? I don't mind them doing pieces on it but isn't that what behind the lines and shows like that dedicated too.....not sportscenter..... This is just my two cents.

But this is a HUGE historic day in the US history. Again wish the president the best of luck.

*side note.....I would be ****** if any president black or white, rep or dem spending this much on a party!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Congrats to the Bush administration for a flawless turnover......no crap like it was when the Clintons left.Like taking the keys off the whitehouse computer keyboards.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken while I respect the office of the Pres. NObama will have to earn my respect and as of right now, his policy stance is leaving little for me to look at in that regard.

I wish him well and for the country's sake hope he does succeed, but I see the failed policy approach that FDR chose which kept up in a recession until WWII overshadowed it!


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

:bs:

So did massive government spending get us out of the Great Depression or didn't it? From an economic perspective, WWII was just a HUGE government spending initiative.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

omegax.......

It is hard to tell......the spending was the war....but also did not the war create jobs in industry, manufacturing, shipping, etc. Didn't the work force shift towards more women in the work place to fill jobs.....which all leads to people making more money, paying more taxes, purchasing more goods, etc.

FDR had some good programs that created jobs like the work camps (can't remember the name of it) that went around and made bridges, pavilions, offices, etc at state and national parks.

But again.....it is hard to say was it the war that eventually got us out of the depression or was it the war and the programs.

Historians flip flop on this issue. It all depends who you want to believe.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Really historians do not flip flop on it at all. FDR increased spending and increased taxation on the top tier just like NObama and the Dem's are talking of doing now. We went through 6 years of programs like the CC's that did little in the way of economic growth. Then Hitler invaded his neighbors and suddenly Britain along with other threatened countries needed war material that they could not produce in enough quantity. Mfg companies here in the US started to make goods for them. This was the first spark of any significant growth in the nation even with the massive social spending that had been undertaken.

Now fast forward to 1942 and the draft and demand for war goods came about. Because of the stagnation of the manufacturing sector that occurred under FDR, companies that remained in business where forced to produce war goods. Food,wood,rubber and many other items became in short supply in a nation where we had huge natural resources to draw on. But like the current proposals, they will stifle growth of small business and innovation except for areas deemed winners by the Gov. Once again leaving the nation to remain stagnate and with a contracting economy instead of a growing economy.

The key in all of this and to be fair to NObama is he is inheriting a mess similar to that of Hoover in 29 in which the stock market crashed and lending capital dried up just as it is today. His attempts of Gov intervention failed, and he was defeated not so much by a new idea, but that he carried the baggage of prohibition into the election. Much like Bush carried the Iraq war into this past election opening the door for a socialist minded candidate to gain office. With it came FDR and his entitlement philosophy that has grown into what we see today. A nation waiting for someone to give them something for nothing and an attitude that those who have been successful somehow should be required to give up a large majority of what they have worked for to support others who chose not to better themselves. Remeber it was FDR and a Dem Congress that imposed a 78% tax bracket on the prosperous people of the nation effectively stifling any growth.

History is funny in that FDR is remembered as being a Pres of great leadership during WWII, but his actions and those of Truman left this nation and the world exposed to the savage explosion of Stalin and his far reaching attempts of world domination. Do you see a similar situation we face today? If we do not keep the pressure on terrorism and extreme Islamic fanatics we face a repeat of history all over again.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Without regard to the spending done by FDR on behalf of "saving the economy" or the spending because of the war.

Don't overlook the fact that Europe was in ruins and Japan was not much better off either. America was the about only place where things on the ground were not in a "condition" of War. America became the source of most things being produced for the entire World ... for a stretch of time.

There in lies one huge key as to why America could pull out of a depressed economy, inspite of the non-sense FDR was adopting at the time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

omegax said:


> :bs:
> 
> So did massive government spending get us out of the Great Depression or didn't it? From an economic perspective, WWII was just a HUGE government spending initiative.


English intelligence claims to have warned FDR about the invasion at Pearl Harbor. FDR and our intelligence deny it. Some say FDR wanted the war to save him from his failed policies. It can't be proven either way, but up to that point FDR policies were failing. 
As I was grown up many said the republicans try to starve you and the democrats try kill you in war. The democratic party was the war party all the way up to Vietnam and most of the way through it. The failed liberal diplomacy of the 1990's resulted in the emboldened terrorists and our war today, and they want more diplomacy. Great, but make it work. Hint, Carter was unable to kiss the enemy into submission.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> But again.....it is hard to say was it the war that eventually got us out of the depression or was it the war and the programs.


My point, admittedly borrowed from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, is that there is no difference between spending on war and spending on other things when it comes to the effect on the economy. Basically, you can say with 100% certainty "Government spending got us out of the Great Depression". It's just that which spending is responsible is up for debate.


----------



## nita (Dec 11, 2008)

Well my question is if President Obama and all of the democrats and and everone else is against war....then how are they going to spend enough money for their plan to work and what kinds of jobs are they going to be able to make? Because during the war a huge percent of the population disappeared to go fight in the war which made jobs in the home front and the war front and that was what saved the economy? I just don't see how this administration is going to spend enough money in the right places?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Believe me nothing will change. It's pretty much still all the same uke: corrupted elected officials in DC. If you add a fresh apple to a barrel of spoiled apples guess what happens real fast.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you add a fresh apple to a barrel of spoiled apples guess what happens real fast.


You know buckeye I have thought that often. It's the only explanation for some of the people we send from North Dakota. It appears they are more loyal to the party they belong to than they are to us. I fear our current representation may go along with a lot of upcoming anti-gun legislation. I think the radical ant-gun and anti-hunting groups smell blood.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> The thing I don't think this country is seeing is the reverse discrimination.....
> 
> I agree.
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is nothing wrong with expecting true equal rights. No one should be treated special because they are white, or if they are black. Nor should they be looked down on either. Race, sex, religion, gay, straight, who are the people that concentrate on it? The liberals that's who. They see it, and are upset that those of us who are not bias do not see it. I have said this before if I hire someone I don't care if they are a pink and yellow striped, Martian, hermaphorodite, or not, only that they perform. Anything else, anything, is prejudice. 
If they truely want a color blind nation forget, black. white, red, yellow, good grief I had forgotten anything but white and black. Talk about prejudice. :eyeroll: I swear if they assigned us numbers instead of name some jerk would say even numbers at the back of the buss and the whole fight would start over again. Jesse Jackson and his ilk make money keeping us apart. That's why they keep crying. Take that away and the guy will have to find a job.

Hey give me a black conservative over a white liberal any day. oke:


----------

