The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

The Air Force has 135 F-22s.

[Balta1701]

The Air Force has 135 F-22s.

0 of which have ever been used in combat, I believe.

 

I'm pretty sure given what's already been ordered that the air force will wind up with exactly 187 of them.

[EvilMonkey]

Didn't you JUST get on Obama like a couple days ago for breaking protocol with foreign heads of state? For not respecting their level of office?

 

You are seriously getting to the point of being obsessive, man.

Bush got reamed by the nutroots for bowing to the Saudis. Only silence from them about Obama bowing.

[StrangeSox]

F-22 purchases canceled. And no boosting the F-35 is not the answer. The F-35 has a purpose, and that is multi-role fighter.

 

Yes, they are tough on defense.

 

It was Gates' recommendation.

[southsider2k5]

Your article, I can presume only entirely by accident because what motivation would they have to make things look bad for the Democrat...left out some key, key polling data. From your piece:

The small bit they left out:

 

You better hope that Cuomo has a hooker problem if you think the Republicans can beat those numbers with Rudy.

 

I would imagine the point of the article was to point out that the Democrats are already fracturing nationwide, not what Republicians would do in the race, being as that the Republicians only got one sentence in the whole article.

[southsider2k5]

Your article, I can presume only entirely by accident because what motivation would they have to make things look bad for the Democrat...left out some key, key polling data. From your piece:

The small bit they left out:

 

You better hope that Cuomo has a hooker problem if you think the Republicans can beat those numbers with Rudy.

 

I would imagine the point of the article was to point out that the Democrats are already fracturing nationwide, not what Republicians would do in the race, being as that the Republicians only got one sentence in the whole article.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Your article, I can presume only entirely by accident because what motivation would they have to make things look bad for the Democrat...left out some key, key polling data. From your piece:

The small bit they left out:

 

You better hope that Cuomo has a hooker problem if you think the Republicans can beat those numbers with Rudy.

 

 

Don't underestimate the number of New Yorkers who love Giuliani and will vote for him on name recognition alone though

[southsider2k5]

So the next question is if it is good enough for the banks, why isn't it good enough for the budget? Why can't we hold the President to his own administrations standards?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/business...26banks.html?hp

 

The Obama administration ordered the nation’s 19 biggest banks on Wednesday to undergo stress tests to check whether they could hold up if the economy deteriorated further.

 

But analysts say the administration’s worst projections, which it describes as unlikely, are not much more dire than what many private forecasters already expect.

 

According to the new Treasury Department guidelines, the banks would have to assume that the economy contracts by 3.3 percent this year and remains almost flat in 2010. They would also have to assume that housing prices fall another 22 percent this year and that unemployment would shoot to 8.9 percent this year and hit 10.3 percent in 2010.

 

“I don’t think they are harsh enough,” said David Hendler, an analyst at CreditSights, who said the dire projection was itself too optimistic about the growth that would be generated from President Obama’s stimulus program. “That would be a pleasant outcome, but you have to plan for the worst.”

 

The average outlook of private-sector forecasters envisions the economy shrinking by 2 percent this year and unemployment peaking just below 9 percent in 2010.

 

The average forecast for housing prices is a decline of 14 percent this year and an additional 4 percent next year.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/26/...omic-forecasts/

 

After contracting at a 1.2% rate in 2009, a more modest drop than the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Chip Consensus forecasts assume, the White House sees growth domestic product growth snapping back by 3.2% next year and then 4% or higher the three years after that.

 

The last time the economy preformed that well was the New Economy heyday of the late 1990s.

 

The 2010-2013 forecasts are slightly more optimistic than CBO but much rosier — in some cases by well over one percentage point — than what the Blue Chip Consensus calls for. A separate private-sector gauge, the Survey of Professional Forecasts, also projects a much weaker economy this year and next.

 

[Cknolls]

Transparency baby.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897492702491091.html

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Anyone want to tell Bush, er Obama, that Austrian isn't a language?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

“There’s a lot of -- I don’t know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics,” he said in response to an Austrian reporter’s question.

[Cknolls]

Anyone want to tell Bush, er Obama, that Austrian isn't a language?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

 

Lol. You beat me to it. How dare you criticize our Renaissance Prez.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Cknolls

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyone want to tell Bush, er Obama, that Austrian isn't a language?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Actually, it is a dialect of German, with its own differences, recognized nationally by Austria as their language.

 

[southsider2k5]

Actually, it is a dialect of German, with its own differences, recognized nationally by Austria as their language.

 

I am going to go with the Encyclopedia Britanica on this one...

 

http://student.britannica.com/comptons/atlas?geogId=19

[southsider2k5]

I am going to go with the Encyclopedia Britanica on this one...

 

http://student.britannica.com/comptons/atlas?geogId=19

 

Actually this is even clearer

 

http://www.usefoundation.org/foundation/re...eral.asp?CID=13

 

Official Language(s)

 

GERMAN is the official language, according to the Constitution, Chapter I General Provisions:

 

SLOVENE is recognized as an additional official language in the Federal Province of Carinthia before certain federal, provincial and local authorities and in certain subject matters (Federal Government ordinance of May 31, 1990, Federal Law Gazette No. 307/1977)

 

CROATIAN is recognized as an additional official language in the federal province of Burgenlang before certain federal, provincial and local authorities and in certain subject matters (Federal Government ordinance of April 24, 1990, Federal Law Gazette No. 231/1990)

Minority Language(s)

 

Primarily Croatian, Slovene, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Turkish

 

Updated (November 2003)

 

According to the recently published results of the 2001 Census,

 

* 95.5 percent of the Austrian population uses German as a sole language in everyday life

* 1.1 percent of the Austrian population (82,500 people) declared that they use a language of the recognized ethnic minorities

* 3.4 percent of the Austrians stated that they use other languages

[Cknolls]

More on the ACORN/NY. Times/OBAMA connection:

 

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston...ot-as-reported/

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Actually this is even clearer

 

http://www.usefoundation.org/foundation/re...eral.asp?CID=13

 

From the CIA World Factbook

 

Languages:

 

German (official nationwide) 88.6%, Turkish 2.3%, Serbian 2.2%, Croatian (official in Burgenland) 1.6%, other (includes Slovene, official in Carinthia, and Hungarian, official in Burgenland) 5.3% (2001 census)

[southsider2k5]

Anyways, back to honesty in economic figures reporting... I wonder what job losses really look like, and how bad things will look with all of the high paying defense jobs the White House just axed?

 

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06...g-revised-down/

 

Will Job Numbers Keep Being Revised Down?

 

One positive sign that some took from the employment numbers today was that the rate of job loss appears to have stabilized. When stocks rose at the opening, that was the immediate explanation offered by some analysts.

 

Today’s report says that there were 681,000 jobs lost in December, 655,000 in January, and 651,000 in February. There does appear to be stabilization, perhaps even a slow improvement.

 

But Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, points out a more disturbing trend: The Labor Department keeps concluding that its initial estimates were too optimistic.

 

Here are the total job losses reported for recent months, as originally reported and as shown in the latest revisions.

 

August 2008: Initially 84,000, revised to 175,000

 

September 2008: Initially 159,000, revised to 321,000

 

October 2008: Initially 240,000, revised to 380,000

 

November 2008: Initially 533,000, revised to 597,000

 

December 2008: Initially 524,000, revised to 681,000

 

January 2009: Initially 598,000, revised to 655,000

 

February 2009: Initially 651,000, as released today.

 

On average, from August through January, the first estimate was too optimistic by 112,000 jobs.

 

If that continues, we may find that the apparent stabilization in today’s figures will vanish as the revisions come in.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Anyways, back to honesty in economic figures reporting... I wonder what job losses really look like, and how bad things will look with all of the high paying defense jobs the White House just axed?

 

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06...g-revised-down/

 

I work for a company that supplies a lot of parts to government contractors. I know Lockheed Martin has already announced that if they do indeed lose the presidential helicopter contract (for which they have been doing work on for years already) they will be doing massive layoffs. BAE, Navistar, General Dynamics, OshKosh and some other companies were bidding on one of the tank contracts that got axed so those sites will probably suffer some because of it too. Not to mention the Northro Grummans of the world who make all the avionics equipment for the F-22s...

 

[BigSqwert]

Anyways, back to honesty in economic figures reporting... I wonder what job losses really look like, and how bad things will look with all of the high paying defense jobs the White House just axed?

 

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06...g-revised-down/

 

What about the increase in defense spending? That might add a few jobs.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

What about the increase in defense spending? That might add a few jobs.

 

It may. I do know for a fact though that a couple of these proposed program cuts have some defense contractors very worried and the potential for large layoffs are on some of their tables. (Lockheed Martin being the one that is most likely)

[kapkomet]

There are 9000 employees in Fort Worth LM plant... they were all told that if the F-22 goes... a lot of them could be gone. I'm so excited about that, I can't tell you how happy that makes me!

 

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

There are 9000 employees in Fort Worth LM plant... they were all told that if the F-22 goes... a lot of them could be gone. I'm so excited about that, I can't tell you how happy that makes me!

 

 

Lockheed in Owego, NY hired a lot of engineers in the past few years for the sole purpose of working on the presidential helicopter. If that goes so will the vast majority if not all of those employees

[kapkomet]

What's worse, these are high paying jobs of a highly technical nature. These people are too rich. Uh huh.

 

[Balta1701]

Lockheed in Owego, NY hired a lot of engineers in the past few years for the sole purpose of working on the presidential helicopter. If that goes so will the vast majority if not all of those employees

Weren't the Republicans 2 months ago making an issue of how much of a waste that was?

 

It's better stimulus than a tax cut, but just like all defense spending, its actual value to the country's future is limited.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

What's worse, these are high paying jobs of a highly technical nature. These people are too rich. Uh huh.

 

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/42535277.html

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the

Pentagon will end the F-22 fighter jet and presidential helicopter

programs run by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Military analysts widely expected the radar-evading supersonic

jet - considered an outdated weapon system designed for the Cold

War - would not go beyond the 187 already planned. The planes cost

$140 million each.

But Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed, the nation's largest defense

contractor, has said almost 95,000 jobs could be at stake if the

Pentagon didn't buy more of the planes.

The new fleet of presidential helicopters - with a price tag of

$11.2 billion that was nearly double the original budget- also were

considered at risk to be cut in the 2010 budget.