114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 06:26 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
are you ( conveniently ) forgetting mrs. thatcher
she is such a ball breaker that she is basically a man, right??

Hilary tried to be that way, then got jammed up for not acting like a woman, so who knows if Americans would ever go for that approach.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 06:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
that the key to a woman president is to find a woman that can have the role as Commander In Chief and it would be believable
Makes sense..it is fine for the Germans for instance to take a chance on a woman, as they don't have much of a military and have no intention of using the military.


In my opinion, it is advantageous for Germany to have a woman as head of state, since I thought Germany would like to change their 20th century image of being militaristic. Again, in my opinion, a woman head of state for Germany does not give the image of the old Prussian Kaiser, but perhaps a kind female relative telling everyone to essen, essen (eat, eat).

It also shows they do not keep the women home to be the hausfraus, raising the next generation of ubermenchen.

Regardless, I would like to think the U.S. had something to do with assisting Germany, after WWII, to make such a complete metamorphosis.

Oddly, in the role the U.S. has in the world, we might not have the luxury of doing the same. In the current age, we likely just have too many responsibilities in the world, in my opinion.

However, remembering Golda Meier, being the head of state of Israel, makes me wonder whether a female head of state is advantageous when a real war is imminent, since who blames a female lion for protecting her cubs?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 07:06 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
However, remembering Golda Meier, being the head of state of Israel, makes me wonder whether a female head of state is advantageous when a real war is imminent, since who blames a female lion for protecting her cubs?
and Thatcher was given high marks for her work during the Falklands war correct?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 07:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
I do not remember; sorry.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 07:55 pm
@Foofie,
Well, we have had two female secretaries of state in a row and no one seemed to mind a woman Secretary of State.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 07:56 pm
@hamburgboy,
Or Indira Ghandhi or Golda Meier?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 08:02 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:

Well, we have had two female secretaries of state in a row and no one seemed to mind a woman Secretary of State.
Dep of State does not run the military. In fact, from the sound of Rolling Stones piece on McChrystal it seems that the State Department and DOD are at each others throat.
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:20 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
I do not remember; sorry.

How convenient!
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 10:07 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I do not remember; sorry.

How convenient!


"Convenient," to what end? My not remembering (if I ever did know) does not in any way discredit the other poster's thoughts. Your point is what?

I do hope you were not "put off" by me (an American Jew) pontificating on the possible nuances of Germany having a woman head of state. Since Germans (nationals or expatriates) can have comments on Jews/Israel, then in the spirit of "fair play" (and no double standard), I believe I can comment on Germany, and its post WWII metamorphosis into a benign (aka, non-militaristic) democracy.

I cannot believe I am the only individual with my perceptions. Far be it for me to be so narcissistic. Perhaps though, some others just are not willing to say "the king is naked," and it takes a young child to point it out (metaphorically, in that Germany and its lady head of state is supposed to possibly be perceived as very much the modern, progressive nation, when possibly the value of a lady head of state is quite self-serving for its image remaking in the world?).
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 12:26 pm
@realjohnboy,
The Senate does not possess the power to impeach! The House possesses the power to impeach. The Senate possesses the power to remove.

Quote:
RULES FOR IMPEACHING AND REMOVING A PRESIDENT


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT
Article I. Section 2, last paragraph:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
REMOVING THE PRESIDENT
Article I. Section 3, last two paragraphs:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 12:46 pm
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year………………………..USA Total Civil Employed
...
2001………………..............136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]

2007...........................146,047,000

2008………………..............145,362,000

2009………………..............139,877,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

2010:
January ................... 138,333,000
February................... 138,641,000
March...................... 138,905 ,000
April......................... 139,455,000
May......................... 139,420,000
June.........................139,119,000


A decrease in June of 301,000 Total Civil Employed.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 01:14 pm
Is IL bankrupt?

Quote:
For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession.

Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget.

States cannot go bankrupt, technically, but signs of fiscal crackup are easy to see. Legislators left the capital this month without deciding how to pay 26 percent of the state budget.

The governor proposes to borrow $3.5 billion to cover a year’s worth of pension payments, a step that would cost about $1 billion in interest. And every major rating agency has downgraded the state; Illinois now pays millions of dollars more to insure its debt than any other state in the nation.

snip...

The state pension system is a money sinkhole and the most immediate threat. The governor and legislature have shortchanged the pensions since the mid-1990s, taking payment “holidays” with alarming regularity.



entire article

Refusing to make painful decisions...

no surprises there.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 01:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'm amazed at the number of power-dressed women on Fox News.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 01:59 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Refusing to make painful decisions...

no surprises there.

Actually, I'm on the states' side on this issue. Right now, the American economy---including the economy of American states---is sputtering for lack of spending. In this down-the-rabbit-hole world, the right way to prevent state bankruptcies is that the Federal government increase its aid to the states. "Painful decisions" will only inflict pain; they won't do any good that would justify this pain.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 02:10 pm
@Thomas,
Not me...

I think we should be on an austerity budget at both the state and federal level. But then... I've always felt that way.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@JPB,
Prolly your New English Puritan genes showing. Smile
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 03:03 pm
@Thomas,
the ontario government just announced a " harmonized sales tax " ( throwing federal and provincial sales taxes together ) .
immediate effect : gasoline and electricity are up 8 % .
that's probably a solution to attack the deficit that american citizens won't accept - i assume .

( we've been told that it will benefit the job and export markets -
and " eventually " will benefit all taxpayers . )
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:53 am
@hamburgboy,
hbg, And you believe everything your government tells you; right? LOL
Just a "hello" from the Greek Island, Mykonos. T.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:56 am
@JPB,
JPB, It's not only IL that has that problem. All those who work in government do not have any idea how to pay for all the spending they commit us to.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 09:53 am
@cicerone imposter,
Would Bush and the republicans passing the social security drug bill without funding it be one of those problems. They were hopeing that it would bring down Soc. Sec.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 05:40:22