Hello all.
As the title says.
As a Canadian, here is my message to Kim So-and-So,
president of North Korea:
"Go right ahead, it's ok. Down as many US bombers
as you like, as long as they were made by Boeing."
Here's why I say this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombard ... -1.4308590
BFN.
My message to Kim So-and-So, pres. of N. Korea.
My message to Kim So-and-So, pres. of N. Korea.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
Hi belham2.belham2 wrote:Musher,
You do know we also have "Bombadiers" in our airborne military fleet? In fact, quite a number of them. Should those be "taken-down" too by Mr. Kim & gang?
Yeah, I know, the substantive "bombardier" means "bomber" in English.
It's confusing.
In this case, it's the name of the founder of the company,
Joseph-Armand_Bombardier. His invention, the snowmobile, started the
company.
AFAIK, Bombardier, the company, never constructed military aircraft. (If you
know otherwise, please share your sources? I'd be interested.)
Like a lot of people, you may be confusing the Bombardier company with
the now defunct Canadair, who built the CF-105, dubbed the "AVRO
Arrow", a delta-winged interceptor, in the late 1950's. This plane was
designed during the Cold War to down any ballistic missile, US or Soviet,
flying in Canadian skies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
Please re-read the OP?
Only US bombers constructed by Boeing should be taken down, in the light
of yesterday's sick news, and in the opinion of this Canadian.
BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
-
infromthepound
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2009, 01:29
musher0 wrote:Hi belham2.belham2 wrote:Musher,
You do know we also have "Bombadiers" in our airborne military fleet? In fact, quite a number of them. Should those be "taken-down" too by Mr. Kim & gang?
Yeah, I know, the substantive "bombardier" means "bomber" in English.
It's confusing.
In this case, it's the name of the founder of the company,
Joseph-Armand_Bombardier. His invention, the snowmobile, started the
company.
AFAIK, Bombardier, the company, never constructed military aircraft. (If you
know otherwise, please share your sources? I'd be interested.)
Like a lot of people, you may be confusing the Bombardier company with
the now defunct Canadair, who built the CF-105, dubbed the "AVRO
Arrow", a delta-winged interceptor, in the late 1950's. This plane was
designed during the Cold War to down any ballistic missile, US or Soviet,
flying in Canadian skies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
Please re-read the OP?
Only US bombers constructed by Boeing should be taken down, in the light
of yesterday's sick news, and in the opinion of this Canadian.
BFN.
Hi Musher,
Not sure if you realize that the U.S. military has Bombadier aircraft in service, the same ones used for civilians, that is used for shuffling around military personnel, also ferrying small target equipment, and also some other aspects that can't be mentioned. You need to read to deeper, instead of this topical news.
This 'trade fight' is and was not wanted by the U.S. military and/or even by many U.S. companies. It serves no purpose. The reality is that the trade fight has been nothing but a ploy by this current administration in Washington, DC to deflect attention away from (like they are doing idiotically inserting themselves in the American sports protest stuff) from the fact that despite controlling the White House and both sides of Congress--the Senate and House---they can get nothing done. Why? It all starts at the top, unfortunately, with a person who spends more time tweetering and worrying about how he appears (his image) than managing & running the country of the United States. The current leadership & the current in-fighting in the Republican Party is unnerving, honestly. Overall, it is even more embarrassing than when Obama & the Democrats were in there----who despite not controlling Congress, still managed to do more in one year than this administration will get done in 4 (if they make it that far). And we don't need to digress back to the Democrats either. It's just we have no leadership now today and doesn't look like we'll have it going forward.
Hi Belham2.
I did not know that Bombardier airliners were in service in the US Forces to
carry personnel and such. Thanks for sharing this info.
My dark-humored joke in the OP is my way of saying: " The nerve your Dep't
of Commerce has of issuing such an opinion, when Boeing is being subsidized
to the hilt by the US gov't."
Also the timing of this preliminary Commerce ruling tells Canadians that
Pres. Trump is being of bad faith in the NAFTA negotiations.
BFN.
I did not know that Bombardier airliners were in service in the US Forces to
carry personnel and such. Thanks for sharing this info.
My dark-humored joke in the OP is my way of saying: " The nerve your Dep't
of Commerce has of issuing such an opinion, when Boeing is being subsidized
to the hilt by the US gov't."
Also the timing of this preliminary Commerce ruling tells Canadians that
Pres. Trump is being of bad faith in the NAFTA negotiations.
BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
Fake NEWS!!
Who is the real problem???
Example:
January 2009 to January 2015 Democrats had the larger membership.
House of Representatives
January 2009 to November 2010 Democrats had the larger membership.
If you only listen to the Fake News side of an issue and never believe the real truth!this current administration in Washington, DC to deflect attention away from (like they are doing idiotically inserting themselves in the American sports protest stuff) from the fact that despite controlling the White House and both sides of Congress--the Senate and House---they can get nothing done. Why? It all starts at the top, unfortunately, with a person who spends more time tweetering and worrying about how he appears (his image) than managing & running the country of the United States. The current leadership & the current in-fighting in the Republican Party is unnerving, honestly. Overall, it is even more embarrassing than when Obama & the Democrats were in there----who despite not controlling Congress, still managed to do more in one year than this administration will get done in 4 (if they make it that far). And we don't need to digress back to the Democrats either. It's just we have no leadership now today and doesn't look like we'll have it going forward.
Who is the real problem???
Example:
Senatewhen Obama & the Democrats were in there----who despite not controlling Congress,
January 2009 to January 2015 Democrats had the larger membership.
House of Representatives
January 2009 to November 2010 Democrats had the larger membership.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Thank you for proving that the State of Washington is providing most of the subsidized help to Boeing and not the US federal government.when Boeing is being subsidized
to the hilt by the US gov't."
Nothing new.
That seems to be the normal way a company decides to stay or build in a US State.
What US State offers the best state tax deal.
The normal argument is:
If the company was not here, X number of people would not have jobs, so no taxes paid.
Company located here.
People have jobs.
State taxes the people.
State gets new tax dollars.
As for the US federal government.
Aerospace industry and transportation industry, along with others, are considered war time critical.
Hard to fight a war if you have no manufacturing ability to produce aircraft, tanks, trucks, food, ships, etc.....
The big lesson for that one was World War 2!!!
Yes, US military, buys US products, with US tax dollars, to keep US citizens working and paying taxes, to give to the US government, to buy US military hardware
Most of what the US federal government provides is loans and loan guarantees. Those get paid back or do not really cost anything.
In reading, this stuck out.
The largest single recipient of federal grants and tax credits is a Spanish energy company—Iberdrola—which acquired $2.2 billion in subsidies by investing in U.S. power generation facilities, including wind farms.
Last edited by bigpup on Thu 28 Sep 2017, 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Ever wonder why you always see the North Korean people clapping so wildly?infromthepound wrote:Should't we refer to him as the North Korean emperor?
His position is hereditory, he has had his rivals and opponents killed off.
This is surely the definition of an EMPEROR.
JB
If you do not, you are killed or put in a work camp!!!!!
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Ahem... Your choice of evidence, bigpup, really.bigpup wrote:Prove that statement???when Boeing is being subsidized
to the hilt by the US gov't."
Don't be naive, it's all over the Internet:
url]https://duckduckgo.com/?q=US+gov't+subs ... oen&ia=web[/url]
(Sorry for the incomplete referencing format.)
The WTO (World Trade Organization) has found fault with US gov't subsidies
to various US companies numerous times. Thus making international
competition just a facade.
About Boeing specifically, there are so many of them that I closed my eyes
and let my mouse wander on the duck-duck-go page. It chose this one:
"The Boeing Co. was the beneficiary of a deal to end all deals this past
weekend, when the Washington Legislature voted to extend $8.7 billion in
tax breaks to the aircraft manufacturer stretching out 27 years until 2040.
Gov. Jay Inslee signed the tax breaks into law Monday at the Museum of Flight.
“This is the biggest tax subsidy in U.S. history,
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
Don't be so hard on bigpup.
Many Americans honestly do not know how much we (the U.S government) subsidizes our overall corporations and businesses and other things---i.e. like the goshforsaken agriculture mess we've built up in our country.
As an absolute nominal figure, there is no country in the world that subsidizes more than we do. That's the plain hard truth, and backed up by countless studies (our own, and done by others around the world). But here is where it gets interesting: when you look at this situation in terms of "how much we subsidize as a percentage of our GDP and/or GNP", no country &/or Empire on planet Earth (or the history of Earth, for that matter) can even come close to how little (using this metric) that we overall subsidize our economic entities. And countries around the world do not like to think of this, because it sets them back in their place when complaining.
Thus, it's a chicken and egg thing, an absolute tough argument for all on both sides of the equation depending on understanding it, and from which side you're looking at it. The fact of the matter is, subsidies will never "not' exist for any nation. Then, the question becomes something else entirely, like in what manner are they utilized, how are they wielded, and to what extent will they be backed up by that nation.
Many Americans honestly do not know how much we (the U.S government) subsidizes our overall corporations and businesses and other things---i.e. like the goshforsaken agriculture mess we've built up in our country.
As an absolute nominal figure, there is no country in the world that subsidizes more than we do. That's the plain hard truth, and backed up by countless studies (our own, and done by others around the world). But here is where it gets interesting: when you look at this situation in terms of "how much we subsidize as a percentage of our GDP and/or GNP", no country &/or Empire on planet Earth (or the history of Earth, for that matter) can even come close to how little (using this metric) that we overall subsidize our economic entities. And countries around the world do not like to think of this, because it sets them back in their place when complaining.
Thus, it's a chicken and egg thing, an absolute tough argument for all on both sides of the equation depending on understanding it, and from which side you're looking at it. The fact of the matter is, subsidies will never "not' exist for any nation. Then, the question becomes something else entirely, like in what manner are they utilized, how are they wielded, and to what extent will they be backed up by that nation.
Sorry, I edited another post instead of making this new one.
Reposting here.
Reposting here.
bigpup wrote:Thank you for proving that the State of Washington is providing most of the subsidized help to Boeing and not the US federal government.when Boeing is being subsidized
to the hilt by the US gov't."
Nothing new.
That seems to be the normal way a company decides to stay or build in a US State.
What US State offers the best state tax deal.
The normal argument is:
If the company was not here, X number of people would not have jobs, so no taxes paid.
Company located here.
People have jobs.
State taxes the people.
State gets new tax dollars.
As for the US federal government.
Aerospace industry and transportation industry, along with others, are considered war time critical.
Hard to fight a war if you have no manufacturing ability to produce aircraft, tanks, trucks, food, ships, etc.....
The big lesson for that one was World War 2!!!
Yes, US military, buys US products, with US tax dollars, to keep US citizens working and paying taxes, to give to the US government, to buy US military hardware
Most of what the US federal government provides is loans and loan guarantees. Those get paid back or do not really cost anything.
In reading, this stuck out.
The largest single recipient of federal grants and tax credits is a Spanish energy company—Iberdrola—which acquired $2.2 billion in subsidies by investing in U.S. power generation facilities, including wind farms.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Hello.
About State funding being normal: so why is your Dep't of Commerce
getting on its high horses about the province of Quebec taking a 49 %
share in the production of Bombardier's C-Series? (last part of this
sentence edited, 7:30 p.m.)
To bully Canadians?
Obviously a country must have Forces (land, sea and air) to defend it. But
you do realize that by subsidizing an interceptor plane, for ex. the country
is also subsidizing the R & D of any apparatus applicable to civilian planes.
Can't figure out why you include the Iberdrola example.
BFN.
About State funding being normal: so why is your Dep't of Commerce
getting on its high horses about the province of Quebec taking a 49 %
share in the production of Bombardier's C-Series? (last part of this
sentence edited, 7:30 p.m.)
To bully Canadians?
Obviously a country must have Forces (land, sea and air) to defend it. But
you do realize that by subsidizing an interceptor plane, for ex. the country
is also subsidizing the R & D of any apparatus applicable to civilian planes.
Can't figure out why you include the Iberdrola example.
BFN.
Last edited by musher0 on Thu 28 Sep 2017, 23:29, edited 2 times in total.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
So Boeing receive 13 + Billion in subsidies from states and 64 Billion in Loans and loan guarantees from the Federal government. This seems mind boggling, as it seems that Boeing doesn't have its own aircraft in this class.
This also has an impact on U.S. employment as the engines and other components are supplied by Pratt & Whitney in the U.S.
This also has an impact on U.S. employment as the engines and other components are supplied by Pratt & Whitney in the U.S.
Hi Terry H.Terry H wrote:So Boeing receive 13 + Billion in subsidies from states and 64 Billion in Loans and loan guarantees from the Federal government. This seems mind boggling, as it seems that Boeing doesn't have its own aircraft in this class.
This also has an impact on U.S. employment as the engines and other components are supplied by Pratt & Whitney in the U.S.
I didn't know that.
The nerve they have to come down on Canada, then, in the face of their own
behavior... This US Administration is unfair, morally rotten and disgusting.
BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)