Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving!
____________
Just stopped by to see what's going on after being gone about 6 months. The
group looks like it's improving... maybe up to 50% boating related posts? I
actually saw one from Harry. I gotta hand it to him though... serious
passion for his beliefs. Just wish he was on the Republican side! BTW,
where's Skippy?

--


Keith
__
What's the use of happiness? It can't buy you money. -Henny Youngman

Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year. Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is improving!

Near zero interest rates are the main reason for improved big-ticket sales in
all categories.

The Bush administration removed all the money for dredging the ICW and other
areas from the budget. How is that "good for boaters"?

"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.

____________
Just stopped by to see what's going on after being gone about 6 months.
The
group looks like it's improving... maybe up to 50% boating related posts?

Of course 6 months ago was January...


But, hey, I appreciate that your post was pretty much positivly toned.
That's what
we need more or around here, whether for boating or for OT posts.

As for me, We've been working on Delilah now for about 2.5 years. Over the
weekend
we got the trailer (that we made) back from the painters. It looks GREAT!
This past
weekend we wired up the lights and ran all the brake lines. We were missing
4
adapter/fittings so could not finish the brakes.

We're quite optimistic that NEXT WEEEKEND will be the trailer run. If
everything
goes well then we'll have an "official" launch & christening the following
weekend.

Yea! It's been a long & interesting trip and we haven't even left the dock
yet.

Oh, and THANKS to all the people here that gave advise & opinion along the
way.

Gary

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.




What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus,
and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world,
buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes
mean jobs for overseas workers.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay
for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason
they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they
quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of
the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the
purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military
equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense
machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.




What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus,
and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world,
buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes
mean jobs for overseas workers.


Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self
control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they
keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition
to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family
competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all
over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees
us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi
economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior
by people in power.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.

Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer
jobs now than there were during the Clinton years.

And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television
and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states
right after the Democratic convention.

Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush
misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared
to the Clinton years.


Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. Most politicians know little about the intricacies of world
business. The only thing they can do it to try to fool the gullible
among us into believing that they (or their opponents) actually were
responsible for any gains (or losses) in the economy. Certain policies
may influence the economy in some small ways. But things like the dot
com rise and bust, the temporary success of day trading, and the
subsequent recession when real profits didn't come from the inflated
overvaluation of those dot com stocks.

Clinton was lucky. His presidency coincided with a period of run away
economic growth. Bush wasn't so lucky. He was left with picking up the
pieces after the bubble burst. Neither one had any personal stake in
either economic state.

Dave

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to pay
for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason
they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they
quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case of
the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the
purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military
equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense
machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.




What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from Airbus,
and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world,
buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes
mean jobs for overseas workers.


Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self
control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure they
keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In addition
to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family
competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all
over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees
us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi
economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous behavior
by people in power.


But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and
giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than
Harry does.....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:19:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gary Warner wrote:
"Keith" wrote:
Well, the numbers are out. Boat sales up 21% vs. this time last year.
Guess
the Bush administration is doing a great job and the economny is
improving!

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a post sometime about last year
being very low for boat sales. So when Bush's policies help to bring
down sales and then they finally go up some it looks good? Well, I
suppose that's the same type of mind that can here President Bush say,
"We have a plan to reduce the deficit in 5 years" and not think, "Gee,
when you took over there was a huge surplus and now now only do
you run budget deficts every year but you've increased spending and
put ....." Bla bla bla. By this point you either see the truth or you
don't.



You really need to roll your trouser legs up past your knees to avoid
soiling them in Bush-****.

As an example, compare Clinton's record on jobs with that of Dubya
Bush's.

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.

Numerically, Bush has added *no* jobs to the economy. There are fewer
jobs now than there were during the Clinton years.

And *that* particular statistical truth will be appearing in television
and radio commercials that will begin running in "battleground" states
right after the Democratic convention.

Jobs have not been added to the economy during the Bush
misAdministration. We're still down by nearly two million jobs compared
to the Clinton years.


Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. Most politicians know little about the intricacies of world
business. The only thing they can do it to try to fool the gullible
among us into believing that they (or their opponents) actually were
responsible for any gains (or losses) in the economy. Certain policies
may influence the economy in some small ways. But things like the dot
com rise and bust, the temporary success of day trading, and the
subsequent recession when real profits didn't come from the inflated
overvaluation of those dot com stocks.

Clinton was lucky. His presidency coincided with a period of run away
economic growth. Bush wasn't so lucky. He was left with picking up the
pieces after the bubble burst. Neither one had any personal stake in
either economic state.

Dave

Is that your FINAL answer?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record,
because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to
be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases
from
Boeing, instead of Airbus. Just one problem: They couldn't afford to
pay
for
them, so they finagled the cash in a number of other ways. One reason
they
couldn't afford the purchase is that Saudi ministers get what they
quaintly
call "commissions" when foreign companies sell to them. In the case
of
the
aircraft, estimates of the commissions range as high as 45% of the
purchase
price. Similar commissions are paid for the purchase of military
equipment.
Saudi Arabia is the single largest consumer of American defense
machinery,
next to our own armed forces. They buy the stuff, but don't use it
much,
since we're pretty much their sworn protectors in the region.




What's important is that the Saudis bought from Boeing, not from
Airbus,
and while I am aware that Boeing buys supplies from all over the world,
buying Boeing planes means jobs for Americans and buying Airbus planes
mean jobs for overseas workers.


Here's the good part: Like feeding Bon Bons to a fat lady who has no self
control, we send a constant stream of salesmen to the Saudis to be sure
they
keep buying from us, in return for our oil addiction. Problem: In
addition
to their uncontrolled spending at OUR trough, the entire Sa'ud family
competes with one another in terms of spending on yachts & huge homes all
over the world. They're bankrupting the country. The Muslim Brotherhood
sees
us as being intimately connected with the likely collapse of the Saudi
economy due to what you or I would agree is completely outrageous
behavior
by people in power.


But according to Harry, it's ok as long as they're buying from us and
giving our workers jobs. Perhaps you do see a bigger picture than
Harry does.....

Dave


Dave, I see a larger picture than almost anyone. I chalk this up to my
continual use of old technology: Brains and books. You can learn about the
latter on the web. ROFL! The former....too late for that.