If Only It Was June 4th 2001

[Sphinxter]

Yet he managed to find time to finish, "My pet goat".

 

[Megamixman]

The pound was valued at $1.38 on that date. That would've been sweet.

That is what us dumb Americans get for putting Bush in office twice then giving him a blank check to loot the treasury to give all of the money to Cheney's Haliburton to blow up innocent Iraqis.

You know we had to destroy Iraq because they have bio and "nukuler" WMD. Oh wait they didn't have WMD so Bush then said we had to do it to "liberate" Iraq because Saddam was naughty. Oh wait that wasn't it we killed more Iraqis then Saddam, they didn't like being "liberated" we really did it because of the war on terrahh for 911. Oh wait they had nothing to do with 911, I am so confused why did Bush do it again? Oh yeah, it was for oil, and the military industrial complex, I forgot it is hard to keep all of the lies straight :blink:

And when we vote in McClone this year and he continues the neo-con fascist imperialist agenda and bombs Iran the GBP will be $4.00 and the Pandora will cost $600 USD (or the equivalent of 1 tank of gas). So save up, unless you have saved up in one of the banks that collapsed, then sell apples on the corner to raise your Pandora money

Changes made by the president take about 4-10 years before we start to see their effects. I blame Clinton for all the Tax Increases.

What tax increases? I do know that when Clinton left office gas was around $1.40 per gallon, the dollar was strong, we had a surplus, and a robust economy. When Clinton took office from the first Bush we were in a recession and unemployment was high. The bad things we got from Clinton was the telecom act allowing all of these big corporations to buy up and consolidate media (very dangerous, when you have Rupert Murdoch controlling all of the "news" as he wants it how can you get real info?) , and NAFTA.


[Rant]

No but the tax cuts Clinton put in place pushed the government more into debt. The actual effect of macro-economic policy tend to lag 4-10 years. This means that although the economy sucked when Bush Sr. was in the office. The economic policy enacted under his as well as Reagan's Administration are the reasons for Clinton's economic "success". Very rarely is the economy under a president his fault.

That being said, I will agree that Oil is bad as it is because of Bush. He basically caused utter chaos in the part of the world that produces most of the world's oil, which would have a very profound and immediate effect in the form of speculation and price increases.

That also being said, all the democrats pushing for the US to get out of Iraq are asking for $200 a barrel. Leaving Iraq is oil suicide. Most of any stability in the region is from the fact that a major military power is there to protect the interests of much of the oil gobbling western markets. If the US gets out, guess what! Oil is back in the hands of chaos and I honestly wouldn't be surprised with even $300 a barrel crude prices.

On to politics. McCain is resounding the lesser of 2 evils even in economics, because in reality it's Congress that has major economic power unless there is a declared War. McCain would actually be addressing the most immediate and directly workable problem, which would be the instability in the region from Iraq and Iran. Fix those two and Oil should go down. Taking troops out of Iraq would not fix either. Letting Iran enrich Nuclear Fuel is also not going to help. Would you feel sound knowing that the same country that has you on an economic leash, wants you destroyed, is using your oil money to fund the capability of Nuclear Weapons?

Even with all of this, the real problem is all the politicians are in for themselves, don't know a damn thing, could care less, have the attention span of lit TNT, and they are complete idiots. Did I repeat myself? The emphasis was needed.
Spending Billions in alternative fuel is great, but that's 10,20, 30, possibly more years from now. Bio-fuel, great the Global Warming Maniacs are putting emphasis on another fuel that has to be burned and produces CO2. It also makes an another set of Liberal freakazoids yell "Fire" at the increasing cost of fuel and blame Bio-fuels for lighting the theater on fire.
No, don't drill for oil our selves. Never mind the fact that the US is the only country that actually cares enough about the environment to only allow zero spill drilling. That's right, push the burden of getting oil onto countries that will not give a damn if their Oil rigs are constantly leaking oil, as long as they get it cheap to fuel their burgeoning economies. Never mind the fact that the increased economic productivity would allow for more investments in the large infrastructure changes that would be needed to properly reduce emissions and reduce or eliminate dependence on Carbon emitting combustion cycles for the production of energy be it electricity, industrial, or automotive.

[/Rant]

 

[Chip]

No but the tax cuts Clinton put in place pushed the government more into debt. The actual effect of macro-economic policy tend to lag 4-10 years.

This is a fallacy that gets bandied about quite a bit - usually by fiscally irresponsible politicians who don't want to be held accountable for their economic screwups. The statement falls just as flat if you examine it under any aceptable economic theory as if you examine it with common, every day logic. Your grasp of economics is clearly weak, so lets start with a couple definitions:

Deficit: The amount of money spent above the amount of money earned. If you make $100 per week but you spend $120 in the same time period, you're running a deficit of $20 per week.

Debt: The total amount of money you owe. If you run at a $20 deficit for 4 weeks, you will have incurred $80 in debt.



Fact: The yearly deficit went down every year under Clinton. By the time he left, the Fed was running at a surplus (the opposite of a deficit) for the first time since WWII.

Fact: The yearly deficit rose drastically from 2001 to 2004. It has come down a bit in the last few years, but we are still far from running a surplus like we did in 2000.

Fact: Nearly all costs for the "War of terror", both home and abroad, have been paid for with "emergency spending" bills. Because of this, they are not counted when determining the yearly budget statistics (congress essentially pulls this money out of thin air). If it were counted, the yearly deficit would be at the highest level in US history.

Fact: The national debt in 2000 was just under six trillion dollars.

Fact: The national debt now is just over under ten trillion dollars.


Anybody who is interested in some more real numbers is encouraged to check out this site. It is not a political site and does not editorialize. It is merely a collection of graphs and figures depicting various economic statistics for the last 60-or-so years. Go over the numbers and decide for yourself if the past eight years have been an economic win for the US. Bear these facts in mind when deciding whether or not you want to vote for somebody who has pledged to do the exact same thing if he's elected President.

 

[DaveC]

Most of any stability in the region is from the fact that a major military power is there to protect the interests of much of the oil gobbling western markets. If the US gets out, guess what! Oil is back in the hands of chaos and I honestly wouldn't be surprised with even $300 a barrel crude prices.

Back? like back before we invaded and occupied Iraq? How much was a barrel of oil back then again?

On to politics. McCain is resounding the lesser of 2 evils even in economics, because in reality it's Congress that has major economic power unless there is a declared War. McCain would actually be addressing the most immediate and directly workable problem, which would be the instability in the region from Iraq and Iran. Fix those two and Oil should go down. Taking troops out of Iraq would not fix either. Letting Iran enrich Nuclear Fuel is also not going to help. Would you feel sound knowing that the same country that has you on an economic leash, wants you destroyed, is using your oil money to fund the capability of Nuclear Weapons?

Iran getting a nuke? Bad? yes. Any country having/getting them is bad. So? Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. China has em... Maybe we should bomb them all too? No? Just Iran right. Why? because if they got one they would try to nuke Israel? Then Israel and the US would turn Iran into a crater. And the Iranians don't know that? They are just real stupid I guess - no. Iran doesn't scare me. They wouldn't scare me if they already had the bomb any more than the other countries that have it. They know that if they ever tried to use it they would cease to exist (just like everyone else).

McCain is a cranky senile old man. Old man yells at cloud. He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shites and think they train each other in Iran, He still thinks Czeckoslovakia is a country, he thinks Iraq and Pakistan border each other, and on Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward DOH!. Next he will be claiming to tear down the Berlin wall when elected :rolleyes: The guy is a complete idiot. He claims this big advantage and experience in foreign policy but knows little about it! The guy makes gaff after gaff but the corporate media always ignores it and gives him a free pass (I guess free barbeques do wonders).
Need proof: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/m...h_n_114419.html

He is definetly the worst of the two. He is like Bush only dumber, with a bigger temper. Haven't we had enough of stupid elitist, neo-con, war mongering Republicans yet? No? Thank you sir may I have another? maybe we will after 4 years of McPain maybe when the US is FUBAR? Or maybe you will still be blaming it all on Clinton.

Spending Billions in alternative fuel is great, but that's 10,20, 30, possibly more years from now. Bio-fuel, great the Global Warming Maniacs are putting emphasis on another fuel that has to be burned and produces CO2. It also makes an another set of Liberal freakazoids yell "Fire" at the increasing cost of fuel and blame Bio-fuels for lighting the theater on fire.

Who says bio fuels are the answer? Bio fuels are a joke. Many of the "liberal freakazoids" want real alternatives like wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. Oh yeah there exists today (not 10,20, 30 years) the technology for pure electric cars that use NO gas. They can also use flexible solar cell technology imbedded in top car surfaces (hood, roof trunk etc) to actually recharge themselves just by sitting in the sun. Of course the big oil lobbyists don't like that so...

No, don't drill for oil our selves. Never mind the fact that the US is the only country that actually cares enough about the environment to only allow zero spill drilling. That's right, push the burden of getting oil onto countries that will not give a damn if their Oil rigs are constantly leaking oil, as long as they get it cheap to fuel their burgeoning economies. Never mind the fact that the increased economic productivity would allow for more investments in the large infrastructure changes that would be needed to properly reduce emissions and reduce or eliminate dependence on Carbon emitting combustion cycles for the production of energy be it electricity, industrial, or automotive.

The USA has just 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, yet we currently use about 25 percent of the world's annual oil production. So if we drilled everywhere we could in the US, we would STILL import 22 percent of the world's oil from foreign sources. to use your phrase drilling would produce a slight amount "but that's 10,20, 30, possibly more years from now" You know oil rigs don't just pop out in a few days. How are we going to drill our way out again?

 

[imec]

but I prefer to choose the lesser of the two evils. McCain ftw

:blink:

The world is pretty much screwed if another Republican gets in.


It's pretty sad that we are forced to vote McCain as it is (my hate for leftards and neo-cons has forced me to register as an independent). I'm glad that I made it (turning eighteen in August).

 

[waffles]

umm.
sup ron paul?
._.

 

[imec]

umm.
sup ron paul?
._.

Too bad he doesn't stand a chance (he is the only true Republican).

 

[DaveC]

umm.
sup ron paul?
._.

Yeah sure Libertarians. Get rid of that pesky government. Who needs it.

That is great if you are a rich white male. Everyone else can go blow.

Can't afford health care? Too bad, die and eliminate the surplus population.

Out of work and can't pay the bills? That is what you get for being a looser. Get a job, bum. What? can't find one yet? Oh well too bad, you should have been born rich.

You don't need taxes because we don't need useles things like roads, public transportation, etc.

The libertarian position on the environment seems to be to give it to private owners, who will preserve it. But businesses often make decisions based on short term profit rather than long term investment. For an example of how a corporation can destroy the environment that it owns, look at Maxxam/Pacific Lumber.

Sometimes people get in serious trouble through no fault of their own. Current government provides a limited social safety net. History tells us how bad things could be before that safety net existed--try reading some Dickens. Libertarians want to remove the safety net, and hope that private charity will make up for it. To me this is either a harsh lack of compassion or blind optimism.

Libertarian society relies on contract enforcement. But who enforces contracts? Presumably some private police provider. But what if the person who breaks the contract hires the biggest police provider around? What prevents them from simply ignoring complaints? Libertarians sometimes say that current society assumes that everybody behaves badly. I think libertarian society assumes that everybody behaves well. Neither assumption is correct; the question is which one leads to a better overall result?

Libertarians stress personal property rights, but what makes property so special? Why isn't the right to life--i.e., food and shelter--more important than the right to property? Our society should presumably be organized around the rights which we think are most fundamental.

Intellectual property is an interesting case as it is entirely a creation of the government. It's not obvious how a libertarian society can provide any form of intellectual property which is not based on contract rights--i.e., non-disclosure agreements. Current society has various different types of intellectual property, such as trade secrets, patents, and copyrights, which are not based on contract rights. In libertarian society, do we give those up?

A good government guarantees minority rights. Consider a libertarian society in the U.S. deep south of the early to mid 20th century. Black people not only would have had even fewer rights than they did in the U.S., they would have had no non-violent way to gain more rights.

No these guys are nuts. That may work for a community of a few but not a country of millions.

So what IS the answer? Republicans? Well we saw how well that worked out as they have been taken over by neo-cons and religious fanatics. Democrats? Well if they managed to grow a spine and sprout some cajones maybe. I guess when you eliminate all of the worst, you end up with the bad which are the Democrats. How did it come to this? Oh yeah mixing corporations greed with the government.

 

[waffles]

Am i the only one who lacks the time to read this wall of text?
dont get me wrong, i want to, but my eyes will explode first.
and im reading war and peace.

 

[nickspoon]

You guys are all forgetting how awesome Barack Obama is.

I'd vote for him.

 

[Megamixman]

Back? like back before we invaded and occupied Iraq? How much was a barrel of oil back then again?

When a Dictatorship was in power? Stabillity is often far easier to create when you have one person calling the shots, no Ifs, Ands, or Buts. That is the big social advantage a dictatorship or oligarchy. Currently you have something similar to a civil war, if not total anarchy. Yes that is stability.

Iran getting a nuke? Bad? yes. Any country having/getting them is bad. So? Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. China has em... Maybe we should bomb them all too? No? Just Iran right. Why? because if they got one they would try to nuke Israel? Then Israel and the US would turn Iran into a crater. And the Iranians don't know that? They are just real stupid I guess - no. Iran doesn't scare me. They wouldn't scare me if they already had the bomb any more than the other countries that have it. They know that if they ever tried to use it they would cease to exist (just like everyone else).

There is a huge difference between Iran and countries like China, India, even Russia and US. These countries have a huge vested interest in world stability. They are about as likely to use them as Congress is to ban lobbying. Iran has no such interest. The regime has a huge basis in the extremist movement in Islam. I don't think you understand, they don't care if they die. If they take 'the infidels' with them, they go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell. That's how they see it.

McCain is a cranky senile old man. Old man yells at cloud. He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shites and think they train each other in Iran, He still thinks Czeckoslovakia is a country, he thinks Iraq and Pakistan border each other, and on Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the suwall when elected :rolleyes: The guy is a complete idiot. He claims this big advantage and experience in foreign policy but knows little about it! The guy makes gaff after gaff but the corporate media always ignores it and gives him a free pass (I guess free barbeques do wonders). rge, when in fact the surge began months afterward DOH!. Next he will be claiming to tear down the Berlin
Need proof: /http://www.huffingtonpost.com2008/07/22/m...h_n_114419.html

He is definetly the worst of the two. He is like Bush only dumber, with a bigger temper. Haven't we had enough of stupid elitist, neo-con, war mongering Republicans yet? No? Thank you sir may I have another? maybe we will after 4 years of McPain maybe when the US is FUBAR? Or maybe you will still be blaming it all on Clinton.



McCain is not senile. Just because he is old doesn't make it a flaming fart bag that just talks about the good old days. Kennedy would be far into stage if we based senility on just age. McCain is a politician just like Obama. Both twist the truth in order to get their agenda in place. Both are idiots like I said before. Obama makes mistakes, and twists the truth as well. If you read that article rather then just the headline yourself, you would have noticed the part about how his campaign is very likely making him twist that bit of truth. And, almost no one is dumber then Bush Jr. McCain is no dumber then Obama. Kennedy had a far bigger temper. Oh, wait, he is a Democrat, that means he must have had a troubled child hood right?

I have already said that I agree Bush is an idiot. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq. But saying we should get the hell out is about the most irresponsible childish thing you could do. Oh no, lets ignore the fact that we have completely screwed the place up. Let's get out and let them kill each other, bomb themselves, and allow another Taliban to come to power. Yes, that's what Democrats do. They vote for the fricking war, and when it comes time to actually take responsibility, they point the finger. That's just the kind of president we want. I'd rather have Bill Clinton back. At least he understands the meaning of responsibility. This new brand of media-centered Liberals just want their cake and get to eat it to. Guess what, under Obama, the US will be just as FUBAR as it would have been under McCain, because neither of them actually as the power to do much? Oh, wait, let's just blame the economy when it's a Republican in the office, but come to terms with the fact that Executive office can't do jack about the economy when it is a Democrat.

Who says bio fuels are the answer? Bio fuels are a joke. Many of the "liberal freakazoids" want real alternatives like wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. Oh yeah there exists today (not 10,20, 30 years) the technology for pure electric cars that use NO gas. They can also use flexible solar cell technology imbedded in top car surfaces (hood, roof trunk etc) to actually recharge themselves just by sitting in the sun. Of course the big oil lobbyists don't like that so...

Wind, Solar, and Geo-thermal exist today. Setting up an infrastructure based on them will still have 10,20, 30 years. They don't grow on trees you know. It takes TIME to make the massive amount of Wind Mills, Geo-thermal plants, and Solar panel necessary to even just take over the nation's Coal Plants. The funny thing with electric cars, is that car is actually a good idea. It's just 5-10 years ahead of Battery Technology. You realize how long a Lithium Ion batter lasts? You realize the amount of batteries you would need? Not to mention the sheer amount of waste they will produce. No, don't listen to the environmentalists complaining about the real issues like waste from batteries. Let alone the sheer cost of converting millions of cars to electric. THESE THINGS TAKE TIME BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH YOU HAVE TO DO.

The USA has just 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, yet we currently use about 25 percent of the world's annual oil production. So if we drilled everywhere we could in the US, we would STILL import 22 percent of the world's oil from foreign sources. to use your phrase drilling would produce a slight amount "but that's 10,20, 30, possibly more years from now" You know oil rigs don't just pop out in a few days. How are we going to drill our way out again?

Considering US reserves have not been well explored for over 2 decades, its not surprising. Alaska has barely been explored until recently. But wait, what we've struck black gold!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12481
Not to mention the fact that drilling now wouldn't be to sustain the US for 100 years. It would be keep the economy viable UNTIL Alternative energies are able to pick up the slack. Alternative energies are LONG term solutions. Oil companies have already said they could have Oil Rigs up off the southern coast in a year or two. Considering these companies have been building Oil Rigs elsewhere, even in to this day. I'm more inclined to believe that number then some politician quoting figures from 1970. In the mean time, all those taxes can be invested in Alternative energies and a fundamental infrastructure change AWAY from oil. That is if the democratic congress doesn't shuffle it away for some other pork barrel like all politicians do.

 

[waffles]

one quick thing that has little relation to anything else.
the price of gas has only increased roughly 12%, but it has gone from 2 dollars to four.
the main reason of this, by my logic, is not that gas is more expensive, its just that the dollar is worth significantly less.
so gas isn't really that much more expensive, but- ironically, the decline in the value of the dollar is most likely due to the war, which was an attempt to decrease it.

 

[javaJake]

You know we had to destroy Iraq because they have bio and "nukuler" WMD.

He was told by his own CIA that Iraq definitely had nuclear weapons, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, let me ask you, high and mighty DaveC, would you let Iraq sit around on nuclear weapons of mass destruction or not?

No one is saying his decision is right. But no one is saying he was dumb in making that decision. Big diff.

Oh wait they didn't have WMD so Bush then said we had to do it to "liberate" Iraq because Saddam was naughty.

Yea, this is where things get uncomfortable for the US of A. As far as I could tell, we had stormed their government, taken down the leader, and then realized that, whoops, we have to reconstruct the government.

In hindsight, the idea of tearing a crucial part of that area's peace apart was a bad idea. But yet again, Bush went in thinking that the WoMD were there, and he had to take them out before they were used. He did what he saw was best at the time.

Oh wait that wasn't it we killed more Iraqis then Saddam, they didn't like being "liberated" we really did it because of the war on terrahh for 911.

Now you're just mouthing off. I'd like to see statistics on this. :rolleyes:

Oh wait they had nothing to do with 911, I am so confused why did Bush do it again? Oh yeah, it was for oil, and the military industrial complex, I forgot it is hard to keep all of the lies straight :blink:

Hmmmmm.... this is a conspiracy theory. Honestly, I have no idea where this came from, but it's just as convincing as every other conspiracy theory to date. As has happened countless times in presidential history, time will roll on and history will change people's minds. Suddenly Bush won't be such a bad guy. But then everyone will forget that they were wrong and just blame the next president, or the one after that...

And when we vote in McClone this year and he continues the neo-con fascist imperialist agenda and bombs Iran the GBP will be $4.00 and the Pandora will cost $600 USD (or the equivalent of 1 tank of gas). So save up, unless you have saved up in one of the banks that collapsed, then sell apples on the corner to raise your Pandora money

Yeap. No facts here. You're just mouthing off again.

Last I heard Democrats put more monetary pressure on everyone by increasing taxes to increase government programs. I could very easily start jabbering about how terribly disgusting Democrats are. Thankfully, I won't.

Not sure if I'm right in saying this - but I read somewhere that the US was borrowing heavily from China to fill the gap in its coffers (treasury) and this is what is also weakening the dollar.

This is indeed a problem. I say we cut out or change all of our "help" programs (you know, the kinds where people get in when they didn't need it in the first place) so that they require people they help themselves instead of the government just throwing money in their direction.

The world is pretty much screwed if another Republican gets in.

Why?

 

[DaveC]

McCain is not senile. Just because he is old doesn't make it a flaming fart bag that just talks about the good old days. Kennedy would be far into stage if we based senility on just age. McCain is a politician just like Obama. Both twist the truth in order to get their agenda in place. Both are idiots like I said before. Obama makes mistakes, and twists the truth as well. If you read that article rather then just the headline yourself, you would have noticed the part about how his campaign is very likely making him twist that bit of truth. And, almost no one is dumber then Bush Jr. McCain is no dumber then Obama. Kennedy had a far bigger temper. Oh, wait, he is a Democrat, that means he must have had a troubled child hood right?

This new brand of media-centered Liberals just want their cake and get to eat it to. Guess what, under Obama, the US will be just as FUBAR as it would have been under McCain, because neither of them actually as the power to do much? Oh, wait, let's just blame the economy when it's a Republican in the office, but come to terms with the fact that Executive office can't do jack about the economy when it is a Democrat.

No being old doesn't make McCain senile, being senile makes him senile. I know it is hard to see how bad he really is when the main stream media always covers for him. I can't blame you.

They both make mistakes. One difference. Mc Cain makes a mistake and the right-wing media ignores it or in the case of CBS actually edits out the mistake and replaces it with something else (Anbar awakning gaffe). When Obama makes a mistake every news station will drum on it for at least a week and Faux news will have it scrolling on the bottom of the screen 24-7.

Yes we probably will be FUBAR under either of them. That is because Bush has sent us fo far to hell it will take years to come back. The difference is with McCain we will still be heading full speed ahead to hell no slowing down. How much do you think a third war will cost? Where will the money come from?

The world is pretty much screwed if another Republican gets in.

Why?


Have you been under a rock for the last 7+ years?

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Have you been under a rock for the last 7+ years?

Well, to strengthen that remark, you should add that Bush sr. didn't do anything good for our economy either. It took a democrat to pull us out of the hole he left for us.

 

[Exophase]

Just gotta say, I was in the UK around March 2001 and I sure as hell wasn't getting a 1.38 to 1 exchange rate. Maybe I was just getting ripped off though c_c

 

[Megamixman]

No being old doesn't make McCain senile, being senile makes him senile. I know it is hard to see how bad he really is when the main stream media always covers for him. I can't blame you.

They both make mistakes. One difference. Mc Cain makes a mistake and the right-wing media ignores it or in the case of CBS actually edits out the mistake and replaces it with something else (Anbar awakning gaffe). When Obama makes a mistake every news station will drum on it for at least a week and Faux news will have it scrolling on the bottom of the screen 24-7.

Most newspapers, radio shows, and TV stations are liberal. Fox happens to be one of the few that is actually conservative. Even CNN has a liberal bias on most of what it reports. Calling the media Right-wing is probably the most blatantly stupid thing to say. Political Analysts are turning over in their grave for that statement. McCain gets drummed for every little mistake far more often then Obama does. Wait, according to you that's because he makes more mistakes. Yes, he is old and is not as good at public speaking as Obama. But calling him senile for mistakes that someone in their 20's could make is equivalent to calling any politician honest. I'm trying not to make personal comments on Obama, because I don't think it is right, but I have to hand it to you as democrat, for how underhanded your criticism is.

Yes we probably will be FUBAR under either of them. That is because Bush has sent us fo far to hell it will take years to come back. The difference is with McCain we will still be heading full speed ahead to hell no slowing down. How much do you think a third war will cost? Where will the money come from?

You realize, that Obama has no military experience? Do you honestly think someone like him has a honest gauge on the costs of war? I'm not merely speaking about Money, although it is a huge factor. What about the cost of a Universal health care system? I'm not even talking about the crap Hillary Clinton spewed, but even Obama's system will cost a fortune.

You realize the Social Spending eclipsed military spending long ago? Do you realize how much money is actually going into Iraq in comparison the Billions of dollars being spent on absolute crap here? Yes, lets spend Millions of dollars getting a couple hundred hobo's off the street, when you could have given less then half that to a charity and it would have more then likely done the same thing.

Spending money rebuilding Iraq, rebuilding their democracy, trying to build stability, is far more worth it then the amount of waste that Congress manages to add on each year in the name of Social Welfare. Especially considering, the average standard of living, even in poverty, is well over the average standard of living for most in places like Iraq, and that these so called Social Welfare programs do jack squat.

Have you been under a rock for the last 7+ years?

Well, to strengthen that remark, you should add that Bush sr. didn't do anything good for our economy either. It took a democrat to pull us out of the hole he left for us.


Ok let me put this in lamen's terms. The effects of Presidential Economic Policy lags 4-10 years. What Clinton did, did not bring us out of anything. In fact it is more likely that what he did caused the Bubble burst ( which is still absurd). Today's economic downturn is caused by lots of things due to past policy both by democrats and republicans, as well the fact that our current president has indirectly caused chaos in the oil markets. IT WAS NOT HIS ECONOMIC POLICY!

Economic recessions such as the one we're in ARE not caused by a single person. Nearly 2/3's of the world's population is now moving up in standards of living. Do you remember when the US was developing industrially. At the time, the US was using up a lot of resources. Now China and India are using up a lot of resources, of which one is in very high demand, namely Oil. Steel prices have also risen due to straight demand. Food prices are also going up because of increased demand from these 2 parts of the world. Catch my drift? If their standard of living is going, so must their wages. This makes it more expensive to manufacturer. This means the costs of products go up. All the while, companies are still exporting jobs to India and China. Now, how can you blame decades of declining test scores on Bush, or even a political party? Combine this with the weakened dollar due to economic imbalances and you have our current situation. At the same time, no one can say this one thing caused it. There are many factors, most of which the President and Congress have no control over.

 

[Chip]

You realize the Social Spending eclipsed military spending long ago? Do you realize how much money is actually going into Iraq in comparison the Billions of dollars being spent on absolute crap here?

False.

QUOTE
The effects of Presidential Economic Policy lags 4-10 years.

Still false.

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Those are great links, though you should probably put them in laymen's terms for megamanmix

 

[Nova]

Those are great links, though you should probably put them in laymen's terms for megamanmix




I think "False" is as layman term as he's gonna get.