Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nothing like a Socialist to kill successful businesses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Welcome to the short work week and an increase in production and exports

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/m...longest-hours/
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #32
      First off I voted for Trump. Had to get that out of the way. If the left wing liberals democratic socialists hate me I don't care.

      I own a construction company. My father was a carpenter who helped build all of the houses in Levitown Long Island N.Y. After he and my mom split up she married a mason/bricklayer. My first wife's father was a mason/bricklayer. So I grew up into manhood seeing the "big money" construction had to offer compared to the $2.35 per hour minimum wage I was making working nights at a supermarket part time while still going to high school. Living on Long Island I was also able to go clamming in the Great South Bay and any of you, if you have ever clammed, you would know that pulling that rake is hard work. The pay was 50 bucks a for a bushel (500 clams). 50 bucks for 4-6 hours work was great pay for a 16 year old in 1980!

      When I was growing up we were proud to be working and making money for ourselves. Our middle class parents never gave us handouts. Sure there were a handful of upper class kids at school who their parents bought them a car and a color TV for their room but they were the minority. If I wanted something I had to work for it. We used to brag about how many clams we caught. If you happened to hit a sweet spot you would get inspired and keep raking until your arms felt like they would fall off. but the reward was worth it. 2 bushels or more was 100 plus dollars!

      I started out in construction right after graduation. I could have kept clamming, taking it up full time as some of my friends did but I wanted to learn a trade. I was lucky with my choice because a few years after graduating the Great South Bay was "clammed out."

      After 5 years or so of working for companies framing houses I gradually went out on my own. In the early 90's I started to see the first "Mexican day laborers." A few here and there but there were still American kids born before 1980-90, that were eager to work and learn. The generations after 1990 are not like this. They do not like to work hard. They want everything handed to them and their parents, for the most part obliged. Not me. No sir. My 2 daughters earned what they have. You hear all of these parents saying "I want to give my kids all of those things I never had growing up" That is part of the ruination of America. That attitude to give your kids everything, running up your credit cards and refinancing your house so its like an ATM machine is sickening to me.

      Anyway we are now reaping the results of spoiled American kids as they don't want to work physical jobs like construction so a vacuum was created and was filled by illegal immigrants. You cannot blame them for crossing the border. The risks are worth it. They can try it themselves or pay a smuggler or mule to get them over. Most make 150 dollars a day to start which is 30x more then the 5 bucks a day they made in Central America on a banana plantation.

      You drive around NY now and even the big commercial contractors are hiring illegal labor. The kids from the 90's generation spend 100,000 dollars of their parents money to go to a university, live at home, drive a new car, get an allowance, and most of them major in some idiotic field where they cant find a job or they just take random courses to obtain a degree (like a high school extension). Then they graduate and live at home until they are in their 30's.

      Immigration is a good thing it just needs to be legalized. The wall must be built. Incentives must be in place like a fee that they pay the USA then pay it back gradually with a low interest rate. This in conjunction with going to free English classes at night and paying taxes. Of course they would then be documented and have to report somewhere with proof of them holding up their end of the bargain which would create more government desk jobs here in the USA that some of those university grads can fill.

      We need the immigrants for skilled craft/trade industries because American kids wont do it anymore.

      Rant over





      Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
        First off I voted for Trump. Had to get that out of the way. If the left wing liberals democratic socialists hate me I don't care.

        I own a construction company. My father was a carpenter who helped build all of the houses in Levitown Long Island N.Y. After he and my mom split up she married a mason/bricklayer. My first wife's father was a mason/bricklayer. So I grew up into manhood seeing the "big money" construction had to offer compared to the $2.35 per hour minimum wage I was making working nights at a supermarket part time while still going to high school. Living on Long Island I was also able to go clamming in the Great South Bay and any of you, if you have ever clammed, you would know that pulling that rake is hard work. The pay was 50 bucks a for a bushel (500 clams). 50 bucks for 4-6 hours work was great pay for a 16 year old in 1980!

        When I was growing up we were proud to be working and making money for ourselves. Our middle class parents never gave us handouts. Sure there were a handful of upper class kids at school who their parents bought them a car and a color TV for their room but they were the minority. If I wanted something I had to work for it. We used to brag about how many clams we caught. If you happened to hit a sweet spot you would get inspired and keep raking until your arms felt like they would fall off. but the reward was worth it. 2 bushels or more was 100 plus dollars!

        I started out in construction right after graduation. I could have kept clamming, taking it up full time as some of my friends did but I wanted to learn a trade. I was lucky with my choice because a few years after graduating the Great South Bay was "clammed out."

        After 5 years or so of working for companies framing houses I gradually went out on my own. In the early 90's I started to see the first "Mexican day laborers." A few here and there but there were still American kids born before 1980-90, that were eager to work and learn. The generations after 1990 are not like this. They do not like to work hard. They want everything handed to them and their parents, for the most part obliged. Not me. No sir. My 2 daughters earned what they have. You hear all of these parents saying "I want to give my kids all of those things I never had growing up" That is part of the ruination of America. That attitude to give your kids everything, running up your credit cards and refinancing your house so its like an ATM machine is sickening to me.

        Anyway we are now reaping the results of spoiled American kids as they don't want to work physical jobs like construction so a vacuum was created and was filled by illegal immigrants. You cannot blame them for crossing the border. The risks are worth it. They can try it themselves or pay a smuggler or mule to get them over. Most make 150 dollars a day to start which is 30x more then the 5 bucks a day they made in Central America on a banana plantation.

        You drive around NY now and even the big commercial contractors are hiring illegal labor. The kids from the 90's generation spend 100,000 dollars of their parents money to go to a university, live at home, drive a new car, get an allowance, and most of them major in some idiotic field where they cant find a job or they just take random courses to obtain a degree (like a high school extension). Then they graduate and live at home until they are in their 30's.

        Immigration is a good thing it just needs to be legalized. The wall must be built. Incentives must be in place like a fee that they pay the USA then pay it back gradually with a low interest rate. This in conjunction with going to free English classes at night and paying taxes. Of course they would then be documented and have to report somewhere with proof of them holding up their end of the bargain which would create more government desk jobs here in the USA that some of those university grads can fill.

        We need the immigrants for skilled craft/trade industries because American kids wont do it anymore.

        Rant over




        I am not sure if the above comments are related to the discussion in tis thread since we are talking about the government regulations in the economy and not about the justification of not of immigration policies. Still, the fact that you mentioned Levitown, gives me the opportunity to point at the crucial role of governmental polices at that time which helped people buy houses and become part of the middle-class.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown

        Levittown is the name of seven large suburban housing developments created in the United States and Puerto Rico by William Levitt and his company Levitt & Sons. Built after World War II for returning veterans and their new families, the communities offered attractive alternatives to cramped central city locations and apartments. The Veterans Administration and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guaranteed builders that qualified veterans could buy housing for a fraction of rental costs.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill

        An important provision of the G.I. Bill was low interest, zero down payment home loans for servicemen, with more favorable terms for new construction compared to existing housing.[23] This encouraged millions of American families to move out of urban apartments and into suburban homes.[24]
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Just remember, the various GI Bills are not Socialism. They are payment in kind for services rendered. That is, they are part of the contract a person makes for military service. It isn't a handout. It isn't unearned. The government chose to make that deal with individuals who chose to serve.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Just remember, the various GI Bills are not Socialism. They are payment in kind for services rendered. That is, they are part of the contract a person makes for military service. It isn't a handout. It isn't unearned. The government chose to make that deal with individuals who chose to serve.
            LLOLOL

            You can find whatever reason you want to justify it, and I have no problem with the rationale of such justifications. In any case, it is STILL a governmental choice to intervene in the market. So, you like it or not, sometimes, government interventions can be effective.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
              First off I voted for Trump. Had to get that out of the way. If the left wing liberals democratic socialists hate me I don't care.

              I own a construction company. My father was a carpenter who helped build all of the houses in Levitown Long Island N.Y. After he and my mom split up she married a mason/bricklayer. My first wife's father was a mason/bricklayer. So I grew up into manhood seeing the "big money" construction had to offer compared to the $2.35 per hour minimum wage I was making working nights at a supermarket part time while still going to high school. Living on Long Island I was also able to go clamming in the Great South Bay and any of you, if you have ever clammed, you would know that pulling that rake is hard work. The pay was 50 bucks a for a bushel (500 clams). 50 bucks for 4-6 hours work was great pay for a 16 year old in 1980!

              When I was growing up we were proud to be working and making money for ourselves. Our middle class parents never gave us handouts. Sure there were a handful of upper class kids at school who their parents bought them a car and a color TV for their room but they were the minority. If I wanted something I had to work for it. We used to brag about how many clams we caught. If you happened to hit a sweet spot you would get inspired and keep raking until your arms felt like they would fall off. but the reward was worth it. 2 bushels or more was 100 plus dollars!

              I started out in construction right after graduation. I could have kept clamming, taking it up full time as some of my friends did but I wanted to learn a trade. I was lucky with my choice because a few years after graduating the Great South Bay was "clammed out."

              After 5 years or so of working for companies framing houses I gradually went out on my own. In the early 90's I started to see the first "Mexican day laborers." A few here and there but there were still American kids born before 1980-90, that were eager to work and learn. The generations after 1990 are not like this. They do not like to work hard. They want everything handed to them and their parents, for the most part obliged. Not me. No sir. My 2 daughters earned what they have. You hear all of these parents saying "I want to give my kids all of those things I never had growing up" That is part of the ruination of America. That attitude to give your kids everything, running up your credit cards and refinancing your house so its like an ATM machine is sickening to me.

              Anyway we are now reaping the results of spoiled American kids as they don't want to work physical jobs like construction so a vacuum was created and was filled by illegal immigrants. You cannot blame them for crossing the border. The risks are worth it. They can try it themselves or pay a smuggler or mule to get them over. Most make 150 dollars a day to start which is 30x more then the 5 bucks a day they made in Central America on a banana plantation.

              You drive around NY now and even the big commercial contractors are hiring illegal labor. The kids from the 90's generation spend 100,000 dollars of their parents money to go to a university, live at home, drive a new car, get an allowance, and most of them major in some idiotic field where they cant find a job or they just take random courses to obtain a degree (like a high school extension). Then they graduate and live at home until they are in their 30's.

              Immigration is a good thing it just needs to be legalized. The wall must be built. Incentives must be in place like a fee that they pay the USA then pay it back gradually with a low interest rate. This in conjunction with going to free English classes at night and paying taxes. Of course they would then be documented and have to report somewhere with proof of them holding up their end of the bargain which would create more government desk jobs here in the USA that some of those university grads can fill.

              We need the immigrants for skilled craft/trade industries because American kids wont do it anymore.

              Rant over
              That is a viable plan.

              I like the part you noted where you wanted to learn a skill. That is the key to the entire situation: we need not just hard-working, but a skilled labor force.

              There is little value in unskilled labor. You want yard work done, you hire a company that pays illegals $4 an hour, and they're glad to get it.

              If you want a living wage, you need skills. That is the simple fact of today's economy. We don't need brute labor to erect buildings, farm fields, herd cattle. We need people with viable skills.

              IMO, the public school system should be split: those kids with the aptitude and inclination should be prepared for college, while those kids who are not should be trained for technical and service functions. I've got a nephew-in-law who is a certified diesel mechanic. After technical school he was making white collar wages working for a major trucking firm. Now he's managing the shop.

              What you do have to produce value. If you can return a $250,000 semi tractor to hauling loads quickly and efficiently, you have considerable value. If you move the fry basket out of the hot grease when the buzzer sounds, you do not.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                That is a viable plan.

                I like the part you noted where you wanted to learn a skill. That is the key to the entire situation: we need not just hard-working, but a skilled labor force.

                There is little value in unskilled labor. You want yard work done, you hire a company that pays illegals $4 an hour, and they're glad to get it.

                If you want a living wage, you need skills. That is the simple fact of today's economy. We don't need brute labor to erect buildings, farm fields, herd cattle. We need people with viable skills.

                IMO, the public school system should be split: those kids with the aptitude and inclination should be prepared for college, while those kids who are not should be trained for technical and service functions. I've got a nephew-in-law who is a certified diesel mechanic. After technical school he was making white collar wages working for a major trucking firm. Now he's managing the shop.

                What you do have to produce value. If you can return a $250,000 semi tractor to hauling loads quickly and efficiently, you have considerable value. If you move the fry basket out of the hot grease when the buzzer sounds, you do not.

                A living wage is not just an issue of economic conditions. It is also an issue of political decisions. In EU they have a living wage not because they use brute force to erect buildings but because they have made a conscious political choice! Also, the idea that education is going to solve the problems we face from automation is wrong! Education can help an individual to get a comparative advantage over a less educated and less-skilled worker but no matter how we transform education, there will always be competition within the education system for getting those degrees that promise future high-paying jobs, and there will always be competition in the workforce for getting a supervisor's position or for getting a job that requires advanced skills. And inevitably, in these types of competitions, there will always be many losers and few winners.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  LLOLOL

                  You can find whatever reason you want to justify it, and I have no problem with the rationale of such justifications. In any case, it is STILL a governmental choice to intervene in the market. So, you like it or not, sometimes, government interventions can be effective.
                  Wrong. The GI Bill, whatever the form, is part of an employment contract. You sign up for x years to serve. You get paid, you get a 401K (TSP), you get certain benefits as a result of that. The GI Bill is one of those. You worked for the military for x years and they gave you pay and benefits in return. It isn't a "government intervention" or some handout program like food stamps. You worked for the military and got stuff in return for that. It is no different than if you worked for say, GM and they had a college scholarship program you could take that they paid for.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post


                    A living wage is not just an issue of economic conditions. It is also an issue of political decisions. In EU they have a living wage not because they use brute force to erect buildings but because they have made a conscious political choice! Also, the idea that education is going to solve the problems we face from automation is wrong! Education can help an individual to get a comparative advantage over a less educated and less-skilled worker but no matter how we transform education, there will always be competition within the education system for getting those degrees that promise future high-paying jobs, and there will always be competition in the workforce for getting a supervisor's position or for getting a job that requires advanced skills. And inevitably, in these types of competitions, there will always be many losers and few winners.
                    The real problem is that a certain portion of the population is just too stupid to be able to get to those levels of education, be it high school, college, or anything else. For example, the Soviet Union at one point decided to up their game and require passing calculus to get a high school diploma. The school administrators quickly figured out that most students couldn't grasp or pass calculus. So, they just fudged the records and passed them anyway. That didn't produce better graduates.
                    Not everyone is a genius. Not everyone can get to a certain level of education. You aren't going to get 100% of the population to get a college degree unless you lower the standards and make it meaningless to have one. Of course, that's exactly what the Left would do because it looks good on paper and in theory.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The US can give everyone universal healthcare and secondary education but to do it will require that you have to cut defense spending to almost nothing like Canada and Europe does because we can always rely on the US to bail us out if we ever get into trouble militarily.
                      If the US cuts defense to increase social program spending then who’s going to bail out the US militarly if you ever need it?
                      France,Japan?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        Wrong. The GI Bill, whatever the form, is part of an employment contract. You sign up for x years to serve. You get paid, you get a 401K (TSP), you get certain benefits as a result of that. The GI Bill is one of those. You worked for the military for x years and they gave you pay and benefits in return. It isn't a "government intervention" or some handout program like food stamps. You worked for the military and got stuff in return for that. It is no different than if you worked for say, GM and they had a college scholarship program you could take that they paid for.
                        For the second time, your observation is irrelevant. I do not debate the nature of the GI Bill. I just use it as an example to show that the government has made successful and valuable interventions in the economy. And notice that just a few posts before you were trying to argue that the government should not help full time employees who do to get living wages despite the fact that they work. So, you were against a government intervention to help people who DO work and do not want just "hand outs". Recall also the issue of the federal employees who are not into military and who also often become targets by people like you who do not like to see the government being an employer unless, of course, it employees people like you in the military...
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          For the second time, your observation is irrelevant. I do not debate the nature of the GI Bill. I just use it as an example to show that the government has made successful and valuable interventions in the economy. And notice that just a few posts before you were trying to argue that the government should not help full tie employees who do to get living wages despite the fact that they work. So, you were against a government intervention to help people who DO work and do not get just "hand outs". One can say the same thing about the federal employees who are not into military and who also often become targets of people like you who do not like to see the government being an employer unless of course it employees people like you in the military...
                          Let's go through this a point at a time:

                          I do not debate the nature of the GI Bill. I just use it as an example to show that the government has made successful and valuable interventions in the economy.
                          The GI Bill isn't an intervention into the economy. It is payment in kind for employees of the government in the military.

                          And notice that just a few posts before you were trying to argue that the government should not help full tie employees who do to get living wages despite the fact that they work.
                          Logical fallacy by false equivalence. I still argue that the government shouldn't force or tell other employers what they have to pay their employees as wages, be they full time or part time.

                          you were against a government intervention to help people who DO work and do not get just "hand outs".
                          Another false equivalence not to mention a cum hoc fallacy. I am against the government giving handouts and welfare to workers and then expecting their employers, where the recipients have employment, to pay for it. The government should not be doing that.
                          Looked at another way, let's say an employer does provide well for their employees either in pay or payment in kind like room and board, benefits like paying for education or health care. Yet, because the employee by virtue of their low wage is eligible for welfare assistance of some kind. How fair is it that the government then force the employer to pay for that assistance? Worse, what if the employer removes all the benefits and raises the worker's wage to avoid the payment leaving the worker worse off?


                          One can say the same thing about the federal employees who are not into military and who also often become targets of people like you who do not like to see the government being an employer unless of course it employees people like you in the military...
                          Circular reasoning and irrelevant.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            Let's go through this a point at a time:



                            The GI Bill isn't an intervention into the economy. It is payment in kind for employees of the government in the military.
                            Sure, let's go through this a point at a time:

                            The second does not exclude the first! The Soviets also offered payment in kind (free housing) to the people employed by the government. it is STILL government intervention!


                            Logical fallacy by false equivalence. I still argue that the government shouldn't force or tell other employers what they have to pay their employees as wages, be they full time or part time.
                            Sorry, but the key similarity is that In both cases government actions force people to assume a certain type of cost for the benefit of others. When the government subsidizes veterans for housing through low interest loans and no down payments, it forces other citizens to pay for such benefits through taxes.



                            Another false equivalence not to mention a cum hoc fallacy. I am against the government giving handouts and welfare to workers and then expecting their employers, where the recipients have employment, to pay for it. The government should not be doing that.
                            Looked at another way, let's say an employer does provide well for their employees either in pay or payment in kind like room and board, benefits like paying for education or health care. Yet, because the employee by virtue of their low wage is eligible for welfare assistance of some kind. How fair is it that the government then force the employer to pay for that assistance? Worse, what if the employer removes all the benefits and raises the worker's wage to avoid the payment leaving the worker worse off?
                            A government helping workers does not give handouts or welfare.Also, notice that the issue is not if the government CAN legislate benefits for veterans or if it CAN tax corporations. It is obvious that it can do both. You basically moralize when you say that the government "should not do that" (should not help the workers) or when you justify the opposite - meaning the help the government gave to veterans after WWII. Of course, a socialist can also moralize and say that the government should help full time workers and their children who do not deserve to live in poverty when they are full time employees in companies which do not pay living wages. I do not see why your moral justification for helping veterans buy a house for their families is stronger than the moral justification for helping working families and kids avoid poverty.

                            Also. a second point in my examples is that despite the popular conservative rhetoric that "the government is always the problem," it is pretty clear that this has not been the case historically. It is just people like you have a selective amnesia and forget the cases when the government successfully helped people attain a middle class status.




                            Circular reasoning and irrelevant.
                            You do not know what circular reasoning is. My comment shows the selective standards of yours when you are willing to justify government help when it helps veterans by talking about contracts while you attack the federal contracts that exist for non-veteran federal (or government in general) employees/
                            Last edited by pamak; 27 Aug 18, 02:17.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
                              The US can give everyone universal healthcare and secondary education but to do it will require that you have to cut defense spending to almost nothing like Canada and Europe does because we can always rely on the US to bail us out if we ever get into trouble militarily.
                              If the US cuts defense to increase social program spending then who’s going to bail out the US militarly if you ever need it?
                              France,Japan?
                              Of course we can if we only half our defense budget, which is still more than other country's combine ,we can afford many things for our people and not, like Ike said, the military industrial complex
                              Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final



                              sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

                              It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

                              The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

                              It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.


                              It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

                              We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

                              We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

                              This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

                              This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

                              A couple of friends have asked me about the origins of this speech, and specifically whether Ike wrote it. The short answer is that it’s a collaboration, but certainly the key sentiment came from the president. [ Check out the month's best political cartoons.]

                              As I recount in White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters, the circumstance was the March, 1953 death of Joseph Stalin. Eisenhower felt that the Soviet dictator’s demise provided an opportunity to nip the Cold War in the bud. It prompted him to give a speech that would be titled “ The Chance for Peace.” Here’s the key section from Ghosts:
                              More than a week after Stalin’s death, Eisenhower was talking with speechwriter Emmet Hughes about the address. “Look, I am tired—and I think everyone is tired—of just plain indictments of the Soviet regime,” Ike said. “I think it would be wrong—in fact, asinine—for me to get up before the world now to make another one of those indictments. Instead, just one thing matters. What have we got to offer the world?”

                              As Eisenhower spoke, it seemed to Hughes that his contemplation was drawing to a close. Ike’s thoughts were now coalescing. The president stopped and, jaw set, stared out the window onto the South Lawn. The tiny speck of an F-86 Sabre buzzed across the sky.

                              In an instant his reverie broke, and he wheeled around. “ Here is what I would like to say. The jet plane that roars over your head costs three quarter of a million dollars. That is more money than a man earning ten thousand dollars every year is going to make in his lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long? We are in an armaments race. Where will it lead us? At worst to atomic warfare. At best, to robbing every people and nation on earth of the fruits of their own toil.

                              “Now, there could be another road before us—the road of disarmament. What does this mean? It means for everybody in the world: bread, butter, clothes, homes, hospitals, schools—all the good and necessary things for decent living. …”
                              Eisenhower and Hughes would go over a dozen drafts of the speech, each of which the president carefully edited. It survived criticism from quarters as disparate Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who thought an overt peace overture a mistake.

                              When he gave the speech, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April of 1953, Ike was ill and was barely able to deliver it.
                              • OH, and he was GOP. The last Republican President that I can support. Since Ike the GOP has turned into the Greedy Old Party being paid by just what Ike warned us of all those years ago. Thirteen Billion for one fk ship.
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Don't believe me?

                                https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/
                                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X