It wasn't "attempts". It was one sound plan and it worked.
The economy today is still struggling along. With Reagan's plan
long before the equivalent point in time jobs were being creaed at
the rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month. We had one
month at over 1mil. At the same time, inflation was
falling and horrific interest rates were declining.
The "shafting" was the temporary increase in unemployment
for two years that was caused by the FED jacking interest
rates to the roof to reign in inflation. Inflation that had been
allowed to go unchecked and get worse by the previous
adiminstration. The FED chairman was Paul Volcker, who
was appointed by Carter. He did what he had to do, with
There will likely be a similar day of reckoning and "shafting"
in the future to deal with the consequences of Obama's
spending orgy that now has the debt at $16tril, over 100%
of GDP. The liberals will similarly try to blame that shafting
on whoever is there cleaning it up.
>>In the aggregate that helped
Exactly. All Reagan did was enforce the law after giving them
a warning before they striked and a further day or so to return
to their jobs after they striked. And the fact that the USA now
had a president who stood behind what he said and
wasn't going to be pushed around was noticed. I've seen interviews
with former Soviet Union officials where they said they were
still trying to figure Reagan out in the summer of 81. When they
saw what Reagan did with the ATCs, they realized that things
had changed, he meant what he said, and if he was doing
that to the ATCs, they knew he would be even tougher with
Oh, give me a break. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is waaaaay out of hand.
Go read the Constitution. The President submits a budget to Congress, but that
_no meaning at all_ until *Congress* enacts it into law. *Congress* deserves the
By the way... are you aware that the deficit in *each* year of the Obama
Presidency has been
higher than in *all eight years* of the Bush Presidency *combined*?
So explain to me just how the $16T debt is Bush's fault.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Perhaps some day the pro union faction will realize that the union
leaders are concerned about making money for the union leaders. They
don't really give a damn about the rank and file. Unions outlived
their usefulness sometime about 1970 or so.
Air traffic controllers were victimized by their union who imagined that
somehow they could get away with extortion pure and simple.
Both the traffic controllers and their union lost that one.
And they should have known better considering Reagan's background with the
Actors' Guild and California Governorship.
The same kind of union nonsense is happening right now.
Teachers are currently not happy with their unions and the representation
they are (not) getting from their unions who are too busy sucking up to the
That's why the recall battle in Wisconsin is so important. If the unions
lose there, it's going to undercut seriously their survival and political
power in other states as well. And that would cost the Democrats as well.
The first REAL battle of the next election is happening right now in
<<Welcome to the club! Nice to have you here. He claimed
to have kill filed me a long time ago too.>>
What a bald-faced lie. I've been replying to you on and off since I've been
here. Everybody and his brother knows that. But not you. It's just that I
mostly ignore you because there's no point in arguing with a liar. They'll
just lie some more.
If you're so sure about your facts they should be easy to prove. I know
what I've written and I've never claimed to have killfiled you. You tell us
you're a conservative fact-based cold, logical engineer kind of guy, better
than any liberal, right? So you should be able to use that logical mind to
prove your assertion, Chet.
I'll bet you can't because I never said I killfiled you. In fact, if you
look hard enough, you'll see messages in other groups that say I *avoid*
putting anyone in a killfile to make sure they don't give bad advice to
newbies. But your lies, accusations and egomania DO result in my mostly
ignoring you because it's not possible to hold a civil discussion with a guy
who lies as casually as you do.
I'll be waiting, liar, for you to prove your allegations. (-: God, how I
love it when you step on your joint, over and over again. Here - you can
read what I wrote about killfiles in case you don't know how to search
You've confused my putting you in a killfile with me making you my bitch.
You're my bitch because you respond to nearly every post I make like
Pavlov's dog but I only respond to you when *I* feel like it. That's the
way I trained my dog, too.
Perhaps you need a new alias. How about Truthless Trader?
Enjoy your new sock puppet friend. Maybe you can shuck each other's socks .
. . (-:
Like there's a big diffence in killfiling versus ignoring? Geez,
you can sure get your shorts up in a knot over little things. So
you said you were going to ignore me, not killfile me. Are
you happy now? Unlike you, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
But I fail to see all the anger over the difference.
Oh good, we all will sleep better tonight knowing the lib loon is
out there protecting us from bad advice. I'm here protecting
against your half-baked political ideas. How do you like that?
I agree. It's obvious you're incapable of holding a civil
discussion. You just proved that.
You only respond occasionally because you know your
nonsense is just going to get crushed again by not only
me, but so many others here. But given the bile spewed
forth, I think it really would be better for your health if you
did respond more often instead of letting it build up.
BTW, how much time did you waste doing those google
searches on something that is so meaningless?
Poor you. The list of those on here that you just can't get
along with continues to grow.
Booby doesn't seem to have much intellectual power (staying or not)
Apparently after the first questioning of his claims he runs and hides by
accusing the person challenging him of being a sock-puppet.
But it's very limited creation that depends more on fantasy than reality
Ironically rational types have no problems taking the facts as known and
trying to change the perspective in which they are seen and viewed to gain
new insights and solutions
They are both forms of lateral thinking - which is a form of creative
But somehow liberals can't seem to let go of their fantasies and replacing
them with reality.
It's very Peter Pan-nish
"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message
Funny though how in the US civilians shoot more than double the criminals
that police do. And all the while, police shoot about 6 times as many
innocent bystanders as civilians do.
"Shooting the guy" is NOT the problem
The circumstances of the shooting are the problem
Too bad you haven't figured that out yet.
In your case I agree
You don't seem bright enough.
For the rest of us, you are NOT the one to decide.
(Thank God for that)
On Apr 11, 1:19 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
No, in order for the owners to have any legal input into
how the HOA operates, i.e. the election of board members
or other officers, they have to have an interest in ownership
in the association corporation which is established in the
That means that they own a percentage of every event
which takes place on the common areas of the association
property even if they did not participate in it... The owners
who never show up to HOA meetings still have to pay
fee assessments/fines levied against their units by the
HOA board even if they pretty much live in ignorance
of how it all works...
What this means is that if someone wins an award
for damages against the association corporation, all those
stakeholders in that corporation, i.e. the unit owners,
are financially responsible to fund the payment of
those damages via "special/emergency assessments"
or via the entire corporation and their real property
interests namely their units being liquidated by the
court or a court appointed receiver to settle the debt...
There is no insulation or immunity from that jeopardy
afforded to the unit owners by any association corporation,
HOA board, HOA board insurance, state law protecting
board officers, the flawed SYG proclaimed immunity which
only prohibits criminal sanctions for the death involved but
says nothing about civil immunity from liability...
Without the common property you no longer have an HOA,
and you have owners of units who have no legal means to
access their property if the common elements have been
seized or surrendered... So, yes, if the association insurance
can not or will not cover the damages, then the unit owners
are on the hook to cough up the money even if that means
dissolution and liquidation of their real property and chattels
to accomplish that payment process...
Now about your final sentiment:
Umm... Buzzz... Wrong answer... Those 45 calls to the police
were mostly long prior to his involvement with NW... However,
this death in the final confrontation as a part of NW came AFTER
his interruption of an attempted burglary... He was hailed a hero
blah blah blah...
So the pattern of 45 calls to the police over a several year period
is something that shows a pattern of conduct... He broke up an
attempted crime recently and may have become emboldened by
his "instincts" and snapped to a flawed judgment with Trayvon...
Since his last intervention was heroic, the ends justify the means,
this mental trapping is common in law enforcement and is called
"noble cause corruption"... Someone died because of the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.