SELL AMERICAN !!!

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 4:05:31 PM TWAFA007 wrote:

Now, Im just hoping to be recalled before my 7 years on the list are up.

----------------
[/blockquote]

More bad news. It's 5 years at AA. but I predict all will be back way before then.

MK

 

[Wild Onion]

Bush is pushing this economy into a recession and it will take a lot of time, a lot of job loses, and bankruptcies before we will recover. You are right we can only recover with a new management team in Washington, starting with the CEO. Bush has the potential to be the worse President in history in terms of the economy. Look at the economy when he started. It will be very scary to see were the economy will be when he leaves.

---

Most economists will tell you that the economy was sliding even before the last presidential election.

Most economists will tell you that Presidents have very little influence on the overall economy, anyway.

If we are to have intelligent discussion, please step away from the mindless hyperbole.

 

[Bob Owens]

Wild Onion;
It looks like Bush is truly following in his fathers footsteps.
I agree with your predictions. The main cause of our recession (that started before 9-11) is the concentration of wealth. As more and more of the wealth becomes concentrated at the top overall consumption decreases. Over the last twenty years personal debt has continued to rise as incomes were no longer able to support consumption. Some economists are predicting two more bubbles that are due to burst. The first is the real estate bubble, then the credit bubble. Low loan rates have enticed many people to use equity in their home to make purchases on things such as automobiles that have propped up the economy.As layoffs continue more and more people will restrict their consumption leading to a vicious cycle. The way out is obvious, but it will not likely be pursued because it means the reversal of a twenty year trend where wealth was transferred from the lower classes to the top.

 

[RV4]

Well Bob,

First of all, it appears to me that Wild Onion merely quoted a previous post and did NOT predict anything.

Second of all...

...Should we all quit our AA jobs now so someone like you will not give us punitive order on a seniority because we failed to see the writing on the wall a didn't leave early enough?

Or should we all just quit our jobs period, become unemployed and wait for the liberal government handouts and get the free ride from the rich?

Is it also W's fault that the terrorist attacked our own soil? I think it has been proven on more than one occassion that Zipper Jefferson Clinton knew more about Al Queda than Bush had a time to learn.

Bob, I believe you have now earned the Liberal Trifecta Award, congratulations, you will soon be shipped the Barney Frank bobbing head doll, One pound of Government Cheese, and a life size Clinton inflatable Intern Lewinsky Doll.

 

[will fix for food]

TWAFA007....are you the same person that wrote over at Smilin Jack's to buy AMR at 20-24 because it was going to hit 30 by Q3?

 

[TWAFA007]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/25/2002 8:01:32 PM will fix for food wrote:

TWAFA007....are you the same person that wrote over at Smilin Jack's to buy AMR at 20-24 because it was going to hit 30 by Q3?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha wfff,

Yes. There is only one real 007. Did you not read the first post in this thread. That call was made the 1st of the year before Worldcom, Enron, and the others. Before Bushs' economic policies took effect sending our economy toward recession. As I said in the 1st post, Im always the first to admit when I am wrong. I even bet my job on it and lost. The problem now is the economy will get a lot worse before it recovers. We wont see $30 for a least a couple of years now, if then. Now Im saying cash is king. Wait until the war starts in the 1Q '03, I hope Bush knows better than to start a war during the holidays, then buy back in at record low prices. Again, I say I was wrong. After all even 007 is human.[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

ALOHA, 007

 

[TWAFA007]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/25/2002 6:09:25 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Wild Onion;
It looks like Bush is truly following in his fathers footsteps.
I agree with your predictions. The main cause of our recession (that started before 9-11) is the concentration of wealth. As more and more of the wealth becomes concentrated at the top overall consumption decreases. Over the last twenty years personal debt has continued to rise as incomes were no longer able to support consumption. Some economists are predicting two more bubbles that are due to burst. The first is the real estate bubble, then the credit bubble. Low loan rates have enticed many people to use equity in their home to make purchases on things such as automobiles that have propped up the economy.As layoffs continue more and more people will restrict their consumption leading to a vicious cycle. The way out is obvious, but it will not likely be pursued because it means the reversal of a twenty year trend where wealth was transferred from the lower classes to the top.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha Bob,

You are absolutely correct, sir. The US economy is headed for a recession. Yes, its true the economy was having a downward trend before 9/11, but it is Bushs' policies that will drive it into a recession. Those who say, Presidents have very little influence on the overall economy, anyway, dont really understand the economy,IMHO. Why do you think Bush is starting a war for. $ecurity?

ALOHA, 007

 

[TWAFA007]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/25/2002 7:22:32 AM kirkpatrick wrote:

----------------
[/blockquote]

More bad news. It's 5 years at AA. but I predict all will be back way before then.

MK

----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha MK,

Really? Gee, I thought we, at AA, had the, best, F/A contract. Only 5 years? Well I was furloughed under the IAM contract which gave me 7 years at time of furlough. Hope you are right about recall and I dont have to fight for those 2 extra years.

ALOHA, 007

 

[Wild Onion]

Those who go on internet discussion board and make useless predictions about stock prices (which seem to be invariably wrong) shouldn't lecture anyone else about economic policy or U.S. foreign policy. I'm quite sure I'm just as educated on either subject as TWAFA007.

Although I am a supporter of President Bush, I will concede that this proposed war has become somewhat politicized. That having been said, the necessity for regime change in Iraq is as necessary as it ever was. More and more we are hearing stories of Iraqi connections to Al Qaida. We are hearing more reports of nuclear secrets and materials being leaked from the former Soviet Block to Iraq (East German technology and Georgia materiel). Clearly, regardless of which side of the political fence you stand on, there is a need to ensure the safety and security of those Saddam Hussein means to harm.

To say that Bush stand to receive a huge political gain from military action is debatable as well. If the whole thing lasted 2 weeks, maybe. However, most analysts say we would have to stay in country for quite some time, which could be quite damaging politically. I'm sure Bush has been advised on this.

I personally don't have the time or the desire to open a dialogue on the roots of our current situation. Saddam was allowed to rearm in the 90's and our current economic slide had begun before the 2000 election. I'm not placing all the blame on Clinton, I'm just trying to be fair and reasoned. In the long run it's a moot point. Economies are cyclical anyway.

Please don't reguritate tired sound bites like following in his father's footsteps. Please offer original opinion, not what you have heard from some low level talking head on TV.

 

[Diesel8]

My biggest problem is his insistence on this war. Not sure there is as much public support for it as mentioned by the media. Tony Blair is having a hard time selling it to the british. The link between OBL and Saddam is vague at best, 9 out of 11 of the perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia, supposedly a US friendly nation.

It does have the hollow ring of wag the dog. Now, having said that, I am strongly in favour of quelling Saddam, surely a madman. But then what? Certainly, we do not want to be am occupying force, after all, most muslim countries, where as, they may tolerate our presence, still considers us infidels.

What will happen to Iraq, should we remove Sadam? Jugoslavia was held together by a dictator, whos methods were anything but democratic, but now we have fractions fighting on a continuos basis.

Least we forget, we helped Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war, we helped OBL in Afghanistan. Perhaps, it is time we force the Middle East countries to act, certainly that would go over better with the muslims. They may, however, fear for their own saftey, since quite a few ME countries are ruled by dictators and not democracy.

 

[TWAFA007]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 11:01:07 AM Wild Onion wrote:

Those who go on internet discussion board and make useless predictions about stock prices (which seem to be invariably wrong) shouldn't lecture anyone else about economic policy or U.S. foreign policy. I'm quite sure I'm just as educated on either subject as TWAFA007.

Although I am a supporter of President Bush, I will concede that this proposed war has become somewhat politicized. That having been said, the necessity for regime change in Iraq is as necessary as it ever was. More and more we are hearing stories of Iraqi connections to Al Qaida. We are hearing more reports of nuclear secrets and materials being leaked from the former Soviet Block to Iraq (East German technology and Georgia materiel). Clearly, regardless of which side of the political fence you stand on, there is a need to ensure the safety and security of those Saddam Hussein means to harm.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Aloha Wild Onion,

Im sure when it comes to politics & foreign policy everyone is equally qualified. Its just opinions & everyone has one. The problem I have with Bush & the War on Iraq is the same that Congress, most Heads of State, and the UN have, PROOF. You say, we are HEARING more & more reports. Those reports come from the very people who want the war. Show me the proof. Show me the labs, the missiles, the nuclear material. With all our technology & satellites there must be some HARD evidence. Why is Bush against sending in the independent UN to actually look? If Bush has hard evidence he must know where to look. Is he afraid that they wont find anything and his war,campaign, wont help his campaign? Some say Saddam can move the stuff around. How can he move labs, missile, or nuclear material around without us detecting it? If Saddam had this stuff why didnt he use it during the Gulf War?

Show me the HARD evidence and I will support the war. Reports, are not enough to send or Boys into arms way. Show me some HARDware.

IMHO, I feel the whole Iraq issue is more about OIL & Texan$ than, weapons of mass destruction. Did you hear about the US plan to split Saudi into 2 countries if they didnt play along?

ALOHA, 007

 

[TWAFA007]

DUPE

 

[Wild Onion]

Actually, most of Congress, including Dick Gephardt are in support of the President on this issue.

Most of the western world with the exception of Germany is behind us. Even the newly reelected Gerhard Schroder has tried to realign himself with the US now that he has won. Even the French behind Chiraq are supporting us.

The U.N. is a joke. They'll end up behind us.

I would be much more disconcerted if all U.S. intelligence on Iraq were disseminated through the media. I'd rather we not let Saddam all of what we've figured out.

 

[DL Gold Medallion]

[blockquote]
----------------
You are absolutely correct, sir. The US economy is headed for a recession. Yes, its true the economy was having a downward trend before 9/11, but it is Bushs' policies that will drive it into a recession.[/blockquote]

Umm, last I checked it was congress who makes economic policy. the President cannot legislate. It's basic Political Science.

[blockquote]
Those who say, Presidents have very little influence on the overall economy, anyway, dont really understand the economy,IMHO. Why do you think Bush is starting a war for. $ecurity?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Economic experts will tell you that you are dead wrong. The President has far less influence on the economy than does congress, which legislates economic policy. the President has XZERO direct effect on teh economy. he does have some indirect effect, as some portion of the economy is emotional, instead of logical.

Bush isn't starting the war, he's finishing what was started in 1991 and has led to escalating attacks on US interests culminating in the events of 9/11/2001. Perhaps had his predecessor actually done something about the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc etc besides bombing an aspirin factory, 9/11/2001 never would have happened.

And PLEASE do not forget that the current recession is due primarily to three specific acute crises: the Telecom and Tech bubble burst of March 2000, the corporate accounting scandals which have been going on for AT LEAST the past 5 years before they were caught, and 9/11/2001.

 

[Sean]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 3:17:52 PM DL Gold Medallion wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
You are absolutely correct, sir. The US economy is headed for a recession. Yes, its true the economy was having a downward trend before 9/11, but it is Bushs' policies that will drive it into a recession.[/blockquote]

Umm, last I checked it was congress who makes economic policy. the President cannot legislate. It's basic Political Science.

[blockquote]
Those who say, "Presidents have very little influence on the overall economy, anyway," dont really understand the economy,IMHO. Why do you think Bush is starting a war for. $ecurity?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Economic experts will tell you that you are dead wrong. The President has far less influence on the economy than does congress, which legislates economic policy. the President has XZERO direct effect on teh economy. he does have some indirect effect, as some portion of the economy is emotional, instead of logical.

Bush isn't starting the war, he's finishing what was started in 1991 and has led to escalating attacks on US interests culminating in the events of 9/11/2001. Perhaps had his predecessor actually done something about the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc etc besides bombing an aspirin factory, 9/11/2001 never would have happened.

And PLEASE do not forget that the current recession is due primarily to three specific acute crises: the Telecom and Tech bubble burst of March 2000, the corporate accounting scandals which have been going on for AT LEAST the past 5 years before they were caught, and 9/11/2001.
----------------
[/blockquote]


I agree with everything you pointed out DL except for one fact. There is no such thing as a current recession. The countries economy is growing. All be it at a very slow pace. It's convenient for those politically motivated to stretch the truth from saying we have a slow growing economy to calling it a recession. Most people don't know the difference so they can get away with it. You have to have two consecutive quarters of negative growth to qualify as a recession. The fact is the country WAS in a recession when the current President took office. If you want to blame a President, then you would have to blame Clinton since it started under his watch so to speak.