Financial Shakeup this weekend

[nplenzick]

Wellardmac wrote:

nplenzick wrote:

ccm911 wrote:

As long as you agree that Clinton was the best president we will ever see. And I am completely serious. He was really good. If a BJ was the worst they found...I rest my case.

I agree with most of what you and Wayne have written except this last statement Chris. The best IS yet to come. Call me hopeless but I want Obama in, I want to give this guy a shot . Maybe I still believe we can change things, and to do that we need someone with new ideas......and he's got the most.

On another note, Honda will stop all production of motorcycles this year in the USA and will bring it back to Japan. Any ideas as to why?

UAW...............no not a member

High wages and Health care cost..............wrong Japanese workers are paid a higher wage and have better health care.

US workers don't do the quality of work the Japanese can do.........nope wrong again some years the US workers have a higher quality control record and some years its the Japanese.

So why are they doing this? It seams it's written somewhere in their Constitution that if their economy isn't what it should be that production is brought back home. Now there's a novel idea!

Interesting. I'd not heard that. Is the same true of their auto production?

No, I have not heard anything about the auto production yet. I suspect it was pretty easy to do this for the motorcycle line since it only produced the VTX and Goldwing models. The interesting thing is these models are pretty much designed for and sold here.

[nplenzick]

Wellardmac wrote:

nplenzick wrote:

ccm911 wrote:

As long as you agree that Clinton was the best president we will ever see. And I am completely serious. He was really good. If a BJ was the worst they found...I rest my case.

I agree with most of what you and Wayne have written except this last statement Chris. The best IS yet to come. Call me hopeless but I want Obama in, I want to give this guy a shot . Maybe I still believe we can change things, and to do that we need someone with new ideas......and he's got the most.

We should all be hoping that the best is still to come - we should all be pulling in the same direction to see that the good things that this country has achieved in the past continue to be achieved in the future.

I hate to say it - to do so we will have to invest in education, healthcare, infrastructure and science to keep us on the top of our games. We don't get to stay at the top by resting back on our laurels and taking it all for granted - we'll do it through continued hard work and determination to keep us moving in the right direction.

I couldn't agree more, which is why we need our next President to inspire and lead. What we have now is Buba who couldn't lead himself out of a bar!

[emayer]

I agree wholeheartedly with the prior comments.  No question people of considerable talent and leadership are dissuaded from entering the political fray.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want my personal life or family being raked over the coals...

That said, the ideal President would be one who could come forth and admit that we are at economic war with Asia and the EU and presently are losing the battle.  This leader needs to galvanize the country to question our present way of life (consumption) and incentivize us to change our priorities towards education, healthcare, infrastructure, and production.  This requires personal commitment and sacrifice from all of us.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, only look at what other countries do well and implement those ideas. 

Ultimately, the problem is that we are stuck with a two party system which has made it increasingly difficult to form consensus any any important issues facing this nation.  Just look at the border dispute for example.  We need a broader range of political parties and thought to change the landscape.

[AMoore]

ccm911 wrote:

Wellardmac wrote:

we made the same mistake twice in keeping the President with an IQ of a pea in the Oval Office.

Not "WE"! I voted against him twice. How could folks have voted for him? Probably those folks in Florida with the "Pro-Life Liscense plates" that Nick referred to. I mean, it was obvious from the beginning that this "Daddy's Boy" was a lightweight. And all his temper tantrums did was cost us money!

Retards, All!

I'll never forget, about a year before Bush's first election, he was being interviewed by a TV news magazine and was asked if he recognized the names of a bunch of world leaders. He could not identify any of them. Can you say nucular?

[AMoore]

I have to say that I am surprised that my fellow PCA members are as liberal as this string would indicate.  Of course this is only a small sampling.  Perhaps not liberal, just using common sense with respect to the war and the economy.

[ccm911]

AMoore wrote:

I have to say that I am surprised that my fellow PCA members are as liberal as this string would indicate. Of course this is only a small sampling. Perhaps not liberal, just using common sense with respect to the war and the economy.

I agree, Aaron. I thought that RTR would be all republican. This has been quite a pleasant surprise. "Nucular" even.

[nplenzick]

AMoore wrote:

I have to say that I am surprised that my fellow PCA members are as liberal as this string would indicate. Of course this is only a small sampling. Perhaps not liberal, just using common sense with respect to the war and the economy.

Ether their embarrassed by the leader they have chosen or they just don't have the balls to participate in this thread. So come on Mr. right wing RTR member , turn off Rush for a moment , and shed some light on this discussion. Tells us how great GWB is, tell us what he has done for this country, tell us how much money you have raised to have his portrait chiseled into the side of Mt Rushmore. I know your out there.......or have you come over to the other side

[Wellardmac]

I think that most find him hard to defend at best and embarrassing at worst.

I have been surprised that no-one has stepped up to the plate to defend him.

I'm not a liberal, I try to look for the good in both parties. I'd be an Independent if I didn't dislike the current Republican platform for much. If the Republicans had good ideas I'd be voting for them, but unfortunately right now I don't see that happening. They've been hijacked by the religious right and they have no fiscal discipline, so all the time that continues to be the case they will not be getting my vote.

The sad thing is that they had a good candidate in Mitt Romney, but he screwed up his packaging by pandering to the conservatives, so noone could actually work out what he believed in. He was great as the Massachusetts Governor and would have been a good president if given the opportunity to gain the nomination. Ron Paul would have been a great choice from the trust/social perspective, but fiscally you couldn't predict where he would go.

It's funny, because the entire US political scene is more right wing than the right wing parties in Europe, so here I am an ideological child of Margaret Thatcher finding myself wanting for something more balanced and fair from the social perspective and with a fiscal discipline that is lacking in either party.

[emayer]

Alright I'll fess up!

I should say that I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal, thereby putting me in the moderate category.  I voted for GWB on both occasions primarily because I thought he was the better candidate to address security post 9/11 (oops).  Kerry is intellectually superior, but his lack of consistency in his voting record caused me to question his leadership.  To me he smacked of political pandering, wavering in whatever direction the favorable political wind was blowing.

I am most disheartened by the present administration and especially Congressional Republicans in regards to government spending and the overall direction this country is going.  We may harp on the President as being solely responsible for our economic woes etc., but the reality is that he has little direct control- true power lies within Congress.

No question it is time for serious change in D.C.  As I stated earler, I believe the most durable solution would be to have more than two political parties to break the present infighting and deadlock.  Short of this, I find Obama appealing but would like to hear more of the "nuts and bolts" of how he intends to implement changes.

[dmano]

emayer wrote:

but the reality is that he has little direct control- true power lies within Congress.

As I said before the President really has hardly any authority over anything. He controls about as much as the Queen. Nothing but a figure head and a small one at that. Congress rules all that happens in Washington.

We need to change Congress like we change a dirty diaper often. But we do not do it enough. Congress is full of the rich and the rich just keep getting richer by the moment as we poor folk keep getting shafted. I hope the truckers go on strike but only for the things that Congress needs then you will see a real change when they can't get their kickback items. Unfortunately that will not happen as the strike will only affect us.