Bill Press Falsely Claims Obama Created More Jobs in 20 Months Than Bush Did in Eight Years
Bill Press this weekend said Barack Obama has created more jobs in the past 20 months than George W. Bush did in his entire eight years in office.
As readers will see from the actual data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Press's comments made on the "McLaughlin Group" were so false it's laughable (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MONICA CROWLEY: You have a very chronically high unemployment rate. You have a president who looked like right after the trillion dollar stimulus he checked out on the jobs issue. When you talk about compromise, there's nothing in this man's character…
BILL PRESS: 3.2 billion [sic] jobs…
CROWLEY: …or political temperament to suggest moderation.
BILL PRESS: …created by the stimulus. You can’t ignore it. You may want to ignore it. It’s a, he created more jobs...
CROWLEY: He blew a trillion dollars to no affect.
PRESS: My turn. He’s created more jobs in 20 months than George Bush did in eight years.
Really Bill? Why don't we look at the facts.
According to the BLS's Establishment Survey, there were 132.4 million nonfarm workers in America in January 2001. When Bush left office in January 2009, this number was 133.5 million - a 1.3 million increase.
As just released last Friday, this number is now 130.5 million - a 3 million decrease since Obama was inaugurated.
According to the BLS's Household Survey, there were 137.8 million total workers in January 2001. This number was 142.2 million in January 2009, a 4.4 million increase.
As just released last Friday, this number is now 139.1 million - a 3.1 million decrease since Obama was inaugurated.
As such, depending on which survey you look at, Bush's job creation in his eight years was either 1.3 million or 4.4 million. Both surveys show job losses under Obama at basically 3 million.
Press was either blatantly lying about these numbers or shamefully ignorant.
Of course, what can we expect from a man who just two months ago predicted that Nancy Pelosi would be partying on election night while John Boehner's office would be a morgue?
But on a more serious note, one of the finest weekly political talk shows for decades has been the "McLaughlin Group." Indeed, some of the brightest minds in the game are regularly John's guests.
Bill Press is not someone that should ever be on this program for he is shamelessly partisan and just like this weekend quite often clueless about the facts.
For the integrity of this fine weekly staple, McLaughlin's schedulers really ought to remove Press's name from their Rolodexes.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"I will Follow Him (Obama)" Video Parody
Submitted by im41 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:01pm.
A Humorous Musical Look At The Media's Love Affair With Obama!!
Two thumbs up
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:12pm.
That is a cool video!
From my column:
Submitted by SonnyPalermo on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:08pm.
From my column:
For those who haven’t seen The McLaughlin Report, the usual format is as follows:
Host John McClaughlin poses a question. He then directs it to Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift for a response. Clift uses her allotted minute to state her opinion-as-fact then bloviates for an additional minute. McLaughlin calls on Monica Crowley of Fox News to offer her opinion. Approximately four words into her reply, Clift rudely interrupts, descending like a shrieking pterodactyl and attacking Crowley. The best moment of the show then ensues, when McLaughlin not-so-politely tells Clift to shut up and let someone else in.
Listen to the first couple of seconds of sound on the clip above, what do you hear - the shrill of the harpy and McL telling her to shutup as ususal. . .
Those who are regular viewers
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:36pm.
Those who are regular viewers of TMG [btw it's The McLaughlin Group...not "Report"] know that the usual format is not at all as you describe.
Jer
I miss.....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:54pm.
....the old panel of Bob Novak, Jack Germond, Mort Kondracke, and a player to be named later. Germond was an honest liberal and never would have spouted nonsense like Bill Press.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:41am.
I would like to see Mort Zuckerman--I think a Democrat, but certainly not a liberal ideologue--be more or less the fourth regular along with Crowley, Clift and Buchanan. Clarence Page, who has been a semi-regular for years, could sub occasionally for Zuckerman.
Jer
Press has never been familiar with facts....
Submitted by notinstl on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:07pm.
...especially those that don't quite square with the position he wishes to push.....shameless shill is putting it very mildly when it comes to this douchebag.
and press wants government to subsidize his show
Submitted by Paarl on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:11pm.
truly very unfamiliar with the truth
paarl
Yeah, that is why the unemployment rate is so high.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:13pm.
Because Obama created all those jobs. Doesn't make sense? So what, I am trying to think like liberals do.
I mean Press said the Savior, Obama, created 3.2 billion jobs. There are only slightly more than 300 million men women and children in the U. S. which is less than a billion. Maybe Bill is mathematically challenged... or making it up as he rolls along.
3.2 billion jobs
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:20am.
So that's why we need amnesty. We need 200 million more workers!
DePress.................who
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:21pm.
DePress.................who just idiotically said that the voters had spoken, and THEY are idiots!!! This guy is a nobody who was even a nobody when he was a somebody!!!
Bill Press
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:50pm.
It's been so long, but I think it was Pat Buchanan who said I think on "Crossfire" to Bill Press' face that he should remind people more often that he (Press) ran for public office in eight or nine elections and lost every race. Even back then, "give me all your money!" wasn't a catchy slogan, I guess.
What did Monica say after
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:47pm.
What did Monica say after hearing this moronic comment?
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Created or Saved
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:51pm.
Total worldwide employment is roughly three billion people. Since Obama saved the world from total, catastrophic economic collapse, where no one would have had a job, we can safely interpolate that Obama created or saved three billion jobs. This level of greatness is unprecidented.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Someone left the back gate open at Cartoon Network . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:02pm.
. . . and Bill Press got out again.
Everyone who is a regular
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:46pm.
Everyone who is a regular viewer of the McLaughlin Group know that Bill Press has never been on the Cartoon Network.
Chris channeling Jer (as in his reply to Sonny Palermo's comment above)
Are you sure, Chris?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:50pm.
It would be a perfect venue for the clownish Press.
Jer
It might be, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:26am.
but I think the Cartoon Network's standards are way too high.
Perhaps he means government
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:03pm.
Perhaps he means government jobs?
STOP LYING
Submitted by RMR on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:34pm.
As a good lib like Bill would say, “this guy is living in denial”.
Guys like Bill Press, Bill Maher, Ed Shultz et al, are convinced that regardless of the steady rise of the conservative media (led by Rush Limbaugh, NewsBusters, Breitbart etc,) their lies and smears will still go unnoticed. Because, they believe, that if their friends in the once-dominant liberal media don’t report them, no one will hear about them. Wrong Bill! Noel caught your lie and informed his readers. And now each one of us will tell ten friends, who will then tell another ten friends, and so on, and so on.
A word of advice Bill. Stop lying! Your liberal friends can’t protect you any more.
Bill Press and friends
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:35pm.
We also have the vote Billy.
Mr. Bill, Bush didn't
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:10pm.
Mr. Bill,
Bush didn't create a single job. Obama hasn't, and won't, create a single job. Congress has never, and won't, create a single job. The End.
Actually government does
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:55pm.
Actually government does create jobs, just not ones that create revenue.
Actually the government can
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:36pm.
Actually the government can and does create both. For example, weapons contracts produce revenue for the defense industry, jobs for workers--whose compensation is used in part to purchase goods and services from private sector businesses across America. And, it sustains a military whose protection of this nation is an incalculable asset.
Of course, since it is taxpayer funded, we need to ensure the investments are wise and cost effective.
Jer
You mean like or not like
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:50pm.
$787 billion for 3.5 million created or saved?
Dennis Prager
As of the 1st of October, 551
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:57pm.
As of the 1st of October, 551 bil of the 787 bil package had been spent. And 242 bil of the 551 bil was in the form of tax breaks to families and businesses. The economic impact of the stimulus has been widely [but certainly not universally] assessed in positive terms.
I'm assuming you didn't object to tax relief, or did you?
Jer
There was no tax relief, it
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:25am.
There was no tax relief, it was a relocation of the taxes. And yes I object to tax relief in this manner. It is merely an accounting and the government is borrowing money. It is wrong on so many levels. I will admit that accounting is not my thing but saying 242 billion was in teh form of tax breaks for families and business is stupid. they were payoffs sweet and simple. I did not get any of the 242 billion.
Well, you of course are
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:40am.
Well, you of course are entitled to call it whatever you like, but you might get an argument from the professional economists.
For example, there are millions who don't benefit directly from a cut in the capital gains rate because they don't own any capital assets. Is it therefore stupid for the reduction to be labeled a "tax break" or "tax relief" because a big chunk of the public isn't affected by it?
Jer
edit. typos
Jer, the jobs were not
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:20am.
Jer, the jobs were not created by the government, they were created by private enterprise in response to the government needs. Using your Gordian knot logic, criminals create jobs also.
Well. Dan... to further the
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:35am.
Well. Dan...
to further the reductio ad adsurdum, we could then say that legislators create jobs by declaring certain conduct illegal.
Jer
Jer them big words hurt my
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:50am.
Jer them big words hurt my brain, but I agree with you that your logic and conclusion was wrong.
Wise and cost effective?
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:43am.
If you're sitting in an F-15 which is developing a problem with shedding wings, how "cost effective" is stopping production of the F-22 at 187 planes? If/when the Soviets, er, Russians come out with their own version of the F-22, what will be the response of the "wise and cost effective" crowd? And the F-35 is not in the same league. How wise is the decision to "rebuild" M1A1 Abrams tanks, because the production line was shut down?
Sen. McCain, R-Irrelevance, said the F-22, hasn't dropped a single bomb in Afghanistan. Typical, short-sighted response from a former Mud Mover.
My June issue of Combat
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:48pm.
My June issue of Combat Aircraft has an excellent article on the force structure transformation, inventory reduction and type and distribution of assets of the Russian AF. Let me sum it up for you, UpNorth: We don't have anything to worry about.
Jer
UpN, The F-35 is in dreamland,going to be a hanger Queen.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:45pm.
F-35 Delay til 2015!!!!
We need many more F-22's now... to dodge Russian/Chinese SAM's
When the production run is completed on the F-22 all the specialized equipment used to build the aircraft is sold for scrap.
Man years of labor, sent to the dump.
You Didn't Build That.
Nonsense. In Operation
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:51pm.
Nonsense. In Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqi air defense included 16,000 SAMs. They were able to bring down ONE F-15E, which lacks the stealth technology possessed by the Raptor. [By the way, there has never been an F-15 lost in air-to-air combat.] Even later model SAMs are not a serious threat to the F-22, especially in performance of its primary role of air superiority fighter.
Jer
So you saying SAM technology has not been upgraded in 20 years.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:30pm.
Now that is some colossal nonsense, pal.
By that logic let us bring back the P-51...
You left out the radar destruction rendered by the subsonic F-117's, there by freeing up airspace, for use later by F-15's to bomb stuff.
Even later model SAMs are not a serious threat to the F-22, especially in performance of its primary role of air superiority fighter. Well Gee lets hope so...??For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountry & UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:52pm.
Jer is just channeling Neville Chamberlain upon returning to England after meeting with Adolf in 1939.
"There will be peace in our time."
MD
While Matthew channels the
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:11pm.
While Matthew channels the ORACLE OF DOOFI: Master of the Non Sequitur
Jer
I channel the one and only Oracle of---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:17pm.
Delphi, and leave channeling of the many DOOFI, or the one DOOFUS, to liberals.
Better to be a conservative Master of the Non Sequitur, than to be a liberal Mastur Bator.
MD
That's Mastur
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:26pm.
That's Mastur d` Bator to you, O one of simple mind.
Jer
I believe you misspelled that, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:36pm.
If describing yourself as a liberal, it should have read:
Mass turd inCubator.
MD
nah MD On things military...More like this guy...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:23pm.
Easy peasy japanesy
You Didn't Build That.
Okay General... What was
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:38pm.
Okay General...
What was the straight course speed record held by the F-4E Phantom in mph.
What was the kill ratio of the F-86 against the MiG-15 in Korea. Name three advantages of the MiG over the Sabre? Name three advantages of the Sabre over the MiG? Who was the leading ace in Korea?. Who was next?
No cheating.
Jer
Jer, General, thanks Pal, Oh to be fair you may use google....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:57pm.
Funny you mention one of my all time favorite planes the F-4, speed about 1,000 mph slower than the SAM's being shot at it.
Big suckers, nice afterburners...
Weren't any SAM's in use in Korea in the early 50's..
Oh you need to link the ability of F-15 to dodge SAM's, Kuz I ain't buyin your ....
"My point was the ineffectiveness of the SAMs against the highly efficient but comparatively less sophisticated F-15,[...]" That statement is pure crap, if it was true then there would be no need for Sealth aircraft. Google to your hearts content.You Didn't Build That.
You have a favorite plane?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:04pm.
You have a favorite plane?
DK...Allow me to answer on ucw's behalf:
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:40pm.
The inclined plane (to the right).
Jer
Didn't mean to intrude, but
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:40pm.
Didn't mean to intrude, but the statement sounded comment-worthy.
But I guess if you're really into planes, you should have an all time favorite plane.
I myself was always fond of the Piper Seminoles, and that was only because I was jealous of the kids up in Daytona's Flight School who would fly down to the Keys for me to fuel them up and send 'em back.
DK...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:55pm.
My interest was always in military aircraft--post WWII jets.
But I would guess if one were British of WWII era, it would probably be the Spitfire. If American of that era, the P-51 Mustang. And me, the F-86 Sabre.
Jer
Yea DK , as apposed to Jer's fav... a flame out!
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:26pm.
I was in Colorado this summer and some brave pilot, flew over me (and Estes Park) in a bright red F-86, loud, and really cool seeing that jet fly...
I had a model X-15...
I watched my Navy Buddie pull an engine out of an F-4 Phantom 2, at Miramar Naval Air Station, years and years ago.
SR-71, the cockpit is the size of a motor cycle side car, strapped to massive gas tanks and engines.
I saw Rushes gold colored G550 jet parked in Kona (KOA) stunning color. I also saw the Concorde parked there years earlier.
Flying my first plane a Cessna 150 puts it on the list also.
Nothing like rolling down a runway, like a car, faster and faster until the air surfaces start to take control, then take-off, yippee..
Least favorite F-35, this aircraft will be a massive failure.
You Didn't Build That.
Mine was a Cessna 162, and it
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:32pm.
Mine was a Cessna 162, and it was older than I was at the time.
Flying over the Keys, what a sight.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:05am.
In what sense do you believe the F-86 is or was a flame-out?
Jer
Oh just some issues with machine gun smoke and flame outs...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 6:34pm.
Now I can see why you like the F-86
( I like it too, ;-)
You Didn't Build That.
Thanks for the vid. Clever
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 6:56pm.
Thanks for the vid. Clever filming...50+ years ago!
Jer
Ooh, ooh, do you have a favorite color?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:19pm.
And do you also melt marshmallows into your electrical outlets just to stymy the electrician?
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:36pm.
True, no SAMs in Korea, but plenty of MiGs--which were slightly superior in performance to the F-86 and also were oufitted with better gunnery and enjoyed the advantage of sanctuary status across the Yalu.
But, moving along, you apparently aren't aware of the tactics employed to neutralize SAM launch sites or the electronic and other countermeasures available to avoid SAMs. Oh well...
As far as my "pure crap" statement, I'll get you started, but you'll need to educate yourself.
Jer
Once again you fail to read your own link!
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:52pm.
Stealth
technology provides protection against both radar-guided and heat-seeking SAMs.
Launches of air and sea-based
cruise missiles and the use of stealth aircraft (F-117s against Baghdad and Belgrade and
B-2s against Belgrade) knocked out the most dangerous and heavily defended command
and control facilities. This made the skies over enemy territory safe enough for
formations of non-stealthy attack planes with HARM-carrying and radar-jamming
escorts.
I'm aware of electronic counter measures, stealth is better.
Again you skip the need for stealth, in the next generation of aircraft and cling to the use the F-15 a 38 year old AIRCRAFT. Looks like (from your link) as they can't dodge SAM's after all...
Impressive survival rates none the less, hello... hello 20 years ago. Ok here are some BRAVE men... Wild Weasels
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time". D. Rumsfeld..
So what did you think of Obama not wanting to be seen in front of F-22's, and having the older F-15's used as a photo op instead?
BTW one of your better links..
You Didn't Build That.
You misunderstand again...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 8:14pm.
I'm definitely not dismissing the usefulness of stealth technology [although there are those who do question it as not being cost effective], in which, by the way, we are light years ahead of the Russians.
I was simply pointing out that the SAMs have thus far proved not to be effective against the F-15 despite its non-steatlhiness. And, I read the linked source very thoroughly.
[By the way, my links are always good, but thanks anyway for the hat tip.] :-)
Oh, and I hadn't seen the item about Obama and the photo, but I can understand his avoidance of the F-22 as background.
Jer
Jer, It's a good thing to be light years ahead..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:06am.
Not one of your favorite sites..
When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.
So now what do ya think?
The "cost" has been the clarion squeeking of the left for years and years and yearrrrs.
Testing testing.....Aircraft fun facts : Bombers
Why was the B-58 Hustler such a huge success/or dud?
Hint: The pod
And now the trick Question...
Did F-111 perform as sold to the American peeps?
Hint: "Armpit Inlet" issues.
An installation of this type is often referred to as an “armpit” inlet. The spike automatically translates fore and aft as the Mach number changes. Although not evident in the photograph, the throat area of the Inlet also varies with Mach number. This is accomplished by expansion and contraction of the rear part of the spike.
Humm is that a good thing?
Oh and why is the really old and really tired, (pre B-58's era) the ancient B-52's,and the brand new B-2's still in use?
Hint: Still works
It's kinda cool that "Soviet" terminology is still used, with regards to SAM's. years after the data dump h/t loreal, don't you think just maybe SAM's have improved to the point, that maybe stealth is, ahem ain't so much...
Ok exit question: Why on earth does stealth work? Or why does it work at all..how long will it work, will there ever be countermeasures?
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...The B-58
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:59am.
The B-58 Hustler would have to be considered a dud--even though it was revered those who flew it--but its very brief service tenure certainly didn't justify the investment. My recollection is that the cost of operation was enormous, both in terms of maintenance demands and excessive fuel consumption. Its performance was indeed impressive, at least in terms of speed and altitude--I think it was capable of 1,358 mph. The pod issue: I'm not so sure. It may be that it had to be jettisoned before the ordinance could be released. Or maybe it negatively imjpacted aerodynamics. But those are guesses..
The F-111 did not perform as advertised. It was a variable trajectory wing fighter/bomber which was supposed to allow enhanced performance in a variety of roles, but I believe it was ultimately most suitable only for reconaissance purposes. But, you've stumped me on the "armpit" inlet thing.
The B-52 has been in continuous service since about 1955, succeeding the B-47 as the premier strategic bomber of the USAF. It has been incredibly successful because it is very simply one hell of an airplane. It can carry a massive payload of conventional or nuclear weaponry over vast distances. It can also be utilized as a stand-off platform for cruise missile delivery. It's psychological impact can't be overestimated as was proved time and again in Vietnam. With continued upgrades and improvements, it will probably be around for another thirty years or so.
The B-2 is a valuable asset because of range and stealth technology. It could take off from a base in Kansas, fly to Kosovo, deliver its payload without being detected and then fly back to its base in the states the same day.
Stealth works because of the special materials used inconstruction which because of composition and color do not reflect radio waves like traditional airframes. Also the design contours are softened and curved so that there are no sharp angles which would cause a larger and more detectable "signature" or radar screens. And yes there will eventually be countermeasures which could compromise the utility of stealth. But there will then be counter-countermeasures to keep us ahead of the game.
Jer
Jer, The B-58 was designed for one purpose.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:05pm.
to deliver the H-bomb pod, it never worked.
F-111 armpit inlets, starved it's engines on sharp turns.
The ICBM replaced the need for the B-58, and also the later XB-70.
The B-2 is subsonic, the round trip from Kansas to Kosovo and back is something like 30 hours.
Flying in pairs on a 30-hour round-trip mission from Whiteman Air Force Base in farm country 60 miles southeast of Kansas City, the B- 2s smashed Yugoslav command bunkers, radar installations, communications sites, bridges, arms factories and other heavily defended targets. The aircraft is refueled in the air twice on the way there and twice on the return leg.
Stealth works because there is noise filling the universe with back ground radation. If there was no big bang left over noise, there would be no stealth. Stealth is not 100% all aircraft reflect some radar noise, some more than others.
Oh crap! the F-35 aint' so stralthy
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:03pm.
When I say "even later model SAMs", I think it can reasonably be inferred the phrase would apply to "upgraded technology".
Jer
yea and you did say F-22zzzz... Maybe ask Art Bell
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:04am.
most sources agree, wern't no F-22's flyin in 1990.
Radar energy, emanating from Iraq dropped 99+%, before shiny highly reflective F-15's swarmed the place. And Swarm they did!!!
1 Feb 1991
DOD announces that over 34,000 sorties have been flown (2,500 today), with 19 tactical air strikes and 5 B-52 strikes totalling 600 sorties on Republican Guard fortifications along the Saudi Arabian-Kuwaiti border. 300 sorties targeted Iraqi armor and infantry postions along the border. Also, 278 TOMAHAWK cruise missiles launched to-date.
Come on flight plan of all aircraft sorties way back in 90's public knowledge yet? Just when you'd want to depend on some squishy likiwiki site... sad.. come on that's 20 yrs ago..
And no one is interested in landing on the moon, 50 tons into lunar orbit, 1969, la de da....Go for it commie china, bet ya can't pull it off...50 tons into lunar orbit....
On second thought, It should be kept secret.
Even tho it's 20/41 yrs later, it's still one of a kind, as in first place. Let them re-invent the wheel...Ya know that EPA free country that has 50+ something capital crimes...freedom to whip out those slide rules, opps here come the organ harvesting death vans, humm maybe not..
You Didn't Build That.
Check again Ace. I know very
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:40am.
Check again Ace. I know very well the F-22 wasn't operational at the time of Desert Storm and I stated nothing by which you could have reasonably inferred that I thought otherwise. My point was the ineffectiveness of the SAMs against the highly efficient but comparatively less sophisticated F-15, and the unlikely threat that later model SAMs will pose to the Raptor.
Look, I'm a fan of the F-22. It is without question the top performing, most technologically advanced fighter in the history of aviation. I wish we could afford a thousand of them. But we can't--even with the largest military budget of any nation in the world. There are an array of new weapons systems which we need, and old ones we need to upgrade and maintain, keeping in mind the assymetrical threats we currently face and are likey to face for the foreseeable future. We have to make rational choices.
Jer
updated for minor editing
Rationale this: gov motors 97.4 billion
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:21am.
Dude we can get cars from china.....
F-22 One of a kind, first place winner...made in the USA
On 31 July 2007, Lockheed Martin received a multiyear contract for 60 F-22s worth a total of US$7.3 billion
not a thousand as you wish, only 800, for one stinking car company....
There are an array of new weapons systems which we need,yea, a chicken in every pot, and a UAV in every garage.
You Didn't Build That.
"F-22 One of a kind, first
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:11pm.
"F-22 One of a kind, first place winner"
Has yet to prove its mettle aginst the SU-37 Berkut and its successors. The F-15 has been flown against most everything else in the 'other' inventory successfully except the latest SU series and their various Chicomm copies and derivatives. We can draw conclusions about the F-22 relative to these platforms. The SU-37 as a foe is untried.
NL..
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 10:27pm.
As far as I can tell from the article I referenced earler in Combat Aircraft monthly, the Berkut isn't even scheduled for basing in the foreseeable future. Plus those screwy forward swept wings are still problematic aerodynamically.
The Russians will be principally relying on MiG-29 variants, SU-27 upgrades and MiG-31s for the time being. The Raptor would blow them away. And frankly I would still put my money on the F-15 and F/A-18s flown by our better-trained pilots against any of them.
Jer
Not very many of these other
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:14pm.
Not very many of these other weapons systems will matter if we lose air superiority. The F-22 is priority numbero uno. There also needs to be an F-22N. The F/A-18 E is not a long term solution. The JSF F-35 is not an air superiority solution.
NL, F-35 shall forever be a hanger queen.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:32am.
So far only the shuttle is more expensive to operate.
Kuz China cut off all our supplies to all of our unobtainium alloy, yea sure that's it.
Delay, delay the real dreamliner fighter til '15
Maybe I'm wrong , but didnt Obama sell a fleet if these to the India folk, like a day before?
Signed that agreement, right there at the end of the 1 km long above ground tunnel tunnel, where are the photos of that stinking tunnel?
Bring back the F-22's now!
You Didn't Build That.
NL and ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:33am.
I think every effort will be made to keep the F-35 program going forward. Althouh the US is by far the most significant underwriter of the project, there are too many other nations who have a stake in its future, financially and strategically, for it to be scrapped at this point.
But, I will say this: I have never been a strong advocate of multi-role fighters. Put simply, it inevitably produces a "jack of all trades, master of none" scenario which has plagued similar efforts in prior decades. Even though the F-22 will have ground attack capability, it is designed first and foremost as an air dominance fighter--and as NL notes, it is without peer.
So, if it were up to me, I would cut back on the projected production numbers of the F-35 with a corresponding increase from the present number--what is it, 187?--of F-22s. Although the Raptor hasn't been in actual combat yet, nevertheless its quality and capabilities are a known quantity. The same can't be said for the F-35.
Jer
I offered no opinion on the
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:08pm.
I offered no opinion on the F-35. As a matter of principle, I am disinclined to favor this aircraft. Anything known as 'Joint Strike Fighter' is clearly being designed for too many different and conflicting rolls to be cost effective at any one of them. I am old enough to recall another aircraft touted as the universal solution : the TFX, Robert McNamara's solution to every air combat problem and any budget surplus all rolled into one. This white elephant eventually became the Airforce's F-111. The Navy version was thankfully cancelled.
One F-15E?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:25am.
I think that the family of Cdr. Scott Speicher would disagree, vehemently, with you, Jer. He piloted an F/A-18 and was shot down on the first day of the air war, I believe. By a SAM.
And, from what I've read, there was certainly more than one U.S. aircraft shot down during ODS.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:56am.
I guess I didn't make my point clearly. There were a number of different aircraft shot down in ODS, mostly by SAMs. The majority of jet fighters lost were F-16s, although that was due primarily to the F-16 flying the most sorties.
In support of my argument for the possible continuation of the F-15 Eagle as an alternative to the further production of the better performing but enormously expensive F-22--and also as a rebuttal to ucw's reference to the threat of SAMs--I noted that only one F-15 had been brought down by a SAM during the entire course of Desert Storm hostilities, despite the fact that Iraqi air defenses had approximately 16,000 SAMs available [I believe there was a second F-15 lost to conventional AAA.]
So, again, the point wasn't that planes weren't lost to SAMs. It was that only one of them was an F-15.
Jer.
Speicher is believed to have
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:09pm.
Speicher is believed to have been killed by an Iraqi Mig-25 launched R-40 series missle. This is a big missle, about 1,000#, and can be either IR or semi-active RADAR homing.
Monica Crowley hit the nail
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:35pm.
Monica Crowley hit the nail on the head, although the unemployment rate is not the only thing that is "Chronically High"...... someone needs to clue Press in that Prop 19 flamed out.
double post?
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:04pm.
post deleted
triple post?
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:03pm.
post deleted
Consider this: -One year
Submitted by big.league.slider on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:49am.
Consider this:
-One year after the 9/11 attack, the national unemployment rate was under 6%.
-One year after Obama took office, the national unemployment rate was almost 10%.
So which event was worse for the country employment-wise?
OUCH!!!!
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:28pm.
That's gonna leave a mark.
;~)
There's not a square inch on Jer's body without a mark
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:03pm.
Believe it or not, he actually tries to pass them off as "tribal tattoos" he acquired while traveling with Anthony Bourdain.
Tee hee.
Every mark is a badge of honor.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:31pm.
Every mark is a badge of honor. And proudly I wear them.
King Frederik IX
[as I am known by my Aryan bretheren]
Thanks for sharing, King
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:38pm.
Now let's have a singalong of Bali Hai - I'll start:
"Most people live on a lonely island..."
You got to have a dream...if
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:53pm.
You got to have a dream...if you don't have a dream.
How you gonna have a dream come true?
Oh, wait a minute. That's "Happy Talk"
Never mind.
Fred #9
I've considered it. And it's meaningless.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:02pm.
That would be like saying "Within nine months after Bush took office, 3000 Americans were killed in a single day by Islamic militants. Nearly two years into Obama's presidency, there have only been a handful of Al-Qaeda linked deaths in the US."
So which event was worse for the country, major terrorist attack-wise?
Another meaningless comparison.
Jer
Oh, so you want a meaningless comparison? OK, pick one:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 8:24pm.
1) Monica
2) Eleanor
I rest my case.
Wait a minute. I still haven't picked one.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 8:41pm.
Let's see Monica Seles...Eleanor Powell
Tennis...Dancing
Gee, I like tennis. But I was always a leg man. Gotta go with Eleanor.
Jer
Well, I understand your Eleanor/tennis thing,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 8:57pm.
but I think you messed up on the link.
Thank me.
Egad! I will....just as soon
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:06pm.
Egad! I will....just as soon as I finish throwing up.
[I guess a lifetime of tap can eventually take its toll]
Jer
Sorry, Jer, it was too tempting
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:13pm.
It's just a weakness I'm working on. Thankfully, I have till Jan. 1st to begin seriously addressing it.
Unfair!
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:45am.
Of course Bill Press lies! He is a Democratic Party leader, his religion requires him to lie. I think the Democrat's church of liberslism's first commandment is "Never give a sucker an even break."
But you were not fair to Bush either the time fram for his job cration should be from January 2001 untill January 2006 when the Democrats took over Congress. We may not have a Primeminister but Newt Gingrich proved with a good congress you can give even the worse President a good economy and the reverse is also true.
Obama and Pelosi lie. Why is
Submitted by seven on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:14am.
Obama and Pelosi lie. Why is his lying worse?
Pelosi said we were losing 500 million jobs a month.
Press must live in some Star
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:07am.
Press must live in some Star Trek Alternate Universe or something...
3,200,000,000 jobs is what he said. That's more than enough so that explains why Obama needs a vacation.!
Once Again, Out of Touch
Submitted by DaMama on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:59am.
Bill Press is just another in a long line of out-of-touch leftist liberals who have no clue to what is really going on in this world. His unfaltering allegiance to Obama is typical, even if it means lying through his teeth about Obama's "accomplishments" these last 2 years.
It really is sad to see these people who claim to be journalists spew such lies that are so easily refuted thanks to the internet and our ability to come by information so quickly.
It really is tragic to see these people stoop to such lows just to make Obama look good when he is so obviously unqualified to be President.
Facts...
Submitted by shooter on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:49pm.
We know that facts don't matter to liberals. They are used to spouting lies and having their vast, uneducated electorate just nod their heads in drug- and brain-function addled unison.
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
Silly Billy
Submitted by rammingspeed on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:54pm.
Bill Press wants to be just like Saul Alinsky, but he isn't smart enough. He is unintentionally funny, so at least he's useful for one thing.
Bill Press
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:22pm.
saw a fact in the middle of the night, once. It scared him so badly his hair turned white. He has since carefully avoided any chance of a second encounter."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
What'd you expect from
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:01pm.
a lying, leftwing, liberal commentator on PBS? It's nothing more than a lying, leftwing, liberal propaganda arm of the lying, leftwing, liberal Democrat Party.
but that's just me
Woah..Inroads on India's world wide dominance,of great jobs.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:01pm.
Sitel hires 140 folk, woohoo.. mc jobs
The vain one could with the wave his hand bring back drilling/ coal/ nuk power.. Come on let us drill... boom town.
You Didn't Build That.