The Obama Boom.

[aquaadverse]

We have a whole generation of adults who have never experienced real inflation. We have a President who reflects that and I think the cushioning with borrowed funds, the coming commercial real estate implosion and the fact we already monetized our debt on the QT points to not being close to the bottom. This hasn't been the worse economic event in 70 years, but it's coming.

Pushing for Cap and Trade and using every bad economic event to pimp his health care scheme and our current Congress keeps me nervous.

[alexamenos]

Reason number 1 of 4 or 500 to be a bit skeptical of rosy prognostications about greenshoots and stuff...

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
...
This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.

[Mavdog]

who would have predicted a british source for a story on the "demise of the dollar"?

well, by al means it could come to pass. the dollar became the world's currency due to its prevelance in commerce, and the overall stability of the us economy.

not to menton the simplicity and lack of risk (trading risk) in buying and selling in the same denomination.

what can take its place? not the yuan, which isn't traded. the yen? no way, when you look at the japanese economy its more uncertain than the us. gold? it is more erratic in its value, and that is not good for buyers and sellers in forward contracts.

could there be a new international currency? sure. yet if those who hold huge sums of dollars- and coincidently that includes all those named conspirators in the article- would feel the switch in their back pockets.

the american economy has suffered in this recession, it remains the largest, the american worker remians the most productive, and will prove to the resillient.

we all agree there needs to be a concerted effort to get our government accounts in order, and that, rather than any other, will be the legacy of the current administration. should the forecast of $trillion deficits in the coming 5 years come to pass, the verdict will not be favorable.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

who would have predicted a british source for a story on the "demise of the dollar"?.

I think anyone who has perused the inciteful work of the NYTimes/WashPost in the age of bama.

[92bDad]

Wasn't something mentioned about Oil being the only commodity that is exclusively traded in U.S. Dollar. However, if a decision is made to transition to some other currency or a group of other currencies, would that not devalue the dollar to NOTHING?

What happens if the Dollar value is non-existant, similar to the old Ruble (SP?) from the former Soviet Union?

Before we start to believe that we, the USA is this almighty power and that we are immune from collapse...we need to study global history and see that we are not immuned.

We are still one of the strongest nations in the world, however we need to continue building through capatilsm, or find ourselves falling as a superpower, which will cause us to be vulnerable to some catastrophic events.

It's just the money, but with no money, we rish an increase in the poor, which become disenfranchised which opens itself up to extremism/terrorism and crime.

Unemployment continues to rise with a recorded 9.8% rate and an estimated 20% of this nation out of work for one reason or another.

Another negative sign is the vacancy in retail locations...which at a 17 year high, with nearly 30% vacancy rate.

To think, our government is trying to increase the tax burden on Americans so that they can spend more...meanwhile Americans are trying to cut back on individual spending...only to find the government trying to take what they are saving.

Sure Obama inherited a screwed up economy...there is enough blame to go around, Bush, ACORN, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans...etc...

However, Obama is the one currently in charge, and from my observation...his ideals are only serving to make the current economic crisis worse and quite possibly setting us up for the biggest fall of all.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Wasn't something mentioned about Oil being the only commodity that is exclusively traded in U.S. Dollar. However, if a decision is made to transition to some other currency or a group of other currencies, would that not devalue the dollar to NOTHING?

Oil is traded exclusively in Bernanke Bucks and this is a significant source of strength and stability for our government money. If Sauds, Venezuelans, Iranians and/or the Iraquios start accepting other currencies, yes the dollar will really spiral down in a hurry.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Oil is traded exclusively in Bernanke Bucks and this is a significant source of strength and stability for our government money. If Sauds, Venezuelans, Iranians and/or the Iraquios start accepting other currencies, yes the dollar will really spiral down in a hurry.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein said he wanted to sell oil in Euros - now he's dead...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

In 2000, Saddam Hussein said he wanted to sell oil in Euros - now he's dead...

yep....Hugo Chavez started making noise about doing something similar, just before he was nearly ousted in a covert coup of officially uncertain origins. Iran, too, makes similar noises from time to time and you see where they are on our friends list.

I'm sure it's all just coincidence.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think anyone who has perused the inciteful work of the NYTimes/WashPost in the age of bama.

"inciteful"?

you make absolutely no sense....tell me, what do the ny times and the washington post have to do with an article by the independent on the dollar?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Another negative sign is the vacancy in retail locations...which at a 17 year high, with nearly 30% vacancy rate.

30% vacancy rate? you are so far from the facts, it's...well, it's funny.

and btw individual taxes have been reduced, not increased, for 9 out of 10 taxpayers.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Oil is traded exclusively in Bernanke Bucks and this is a significant source of strength and stability for our government money. If Sauds, Venezuelans, Iranians and/or the Iraquios start accepting other currencies, yes the dollar will really spiral down in a hurry.

venezuela and iran already trade oil in other currencies. no meaningful affect.

with all the reserves of most every country still in dollars, there is a reason the dollar remains relatively strong.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"inciteful"?

you make absolutely no sense....tell me, what do the ny times and the washington post have to do with an article by the independent on the dollar?

There's no better way to destroy the sarcasm you were hoping to portray than to point the sarcasm at you.

"Inciteful" and "insightful" aren't polar opposites by definition, but they are really, really far apart.

The sad thing is...I'm not sure he knew the difference.

[dude1394]

Ah the typing police...great...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Ah the typing police...great...

It had nothing to do with typing, my man.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

30% vacancy rate? you are so far from the facts, it's...well, it's funny.

and btw individual taxes have been reduced, not increased, for 9 out of 10 taxpayers.

The 30% rate is something I heard on the news...sorry, but I don't have a link, nor the time to google it...but I can tell you from traveling to many U.S. Cities for my business, that empty retail sites are everywhere, and 30% is more than plausible.

As for you tax reduction that you claim...does that mean that our Government is taking in less money, thus they are sensitive to the budget and spending less money.

Prove to me that the Obama Administration and this congress is actually coming in UNDER budget and I will list it as one of the positives for his administration.

Remember, spending more money that you have, doesn't mean you have a reduction...sooner or later, the bill will be due.

By the way, did anyone catch the bit about a Superintendent for the Cincinatti school district. (I forget the name), but he created a 900,000 dollar surplus, but going out and asking/accepting donations of goods from companies and facilities that were closing down. Basically stocking up furniture and other resources to be used within the school system. Acquiring some 2-3 Million Dollars worth of goods, that may not have otherwise been purchased...all for FREE.

Now I don't know his views or anything about him or his school system...thus I would like to get more information about this guy, but 1st impression was extremely positive and I would be interested on how other school systems can adopt some of what he has done to make their own systems better for the students?

I share this as an example of someone in government who has found a way to spend LESS. Imagine if everyone in the government had this perspective...then we could effectively REDUCE taxes, even in a down economy.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The 30% rate is something I heard on the news...sorry, but I don't have a link, nor the time to google it...but I can tell you from traveling to many U.S. Cities for my business, that empty retail sites are everywhere, and 30% is more than plausible.

You're mixed up here - it's not that 30% of all retail stores have gone out of business, but rather there's been a 30% increase in empty retail stores from last year (up from 4,603 to 6,913...)

I swear, there's nothing more dangerous than a half-educated man...

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

You're mixed up here - it's not that 30% of all retail stores have gone out of business, but rather there's been a 30% increase in empty retail stores from last year (up from 4,603 to 6,913...)

I swear, there's nothing more dangerous than a half-educated man...

No doubt...who ever said anything about 30% going OUT OF Business.

Thanks for helping me define the 30% number that I heard yesterday...it's 30% increase in empty retail space...basically a 30% increase in vacancy rate and again a 17 year high...

Then again, most liberals I know would love a 17 year high

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The 30% rate is something I heard on the news...sorry, but I don't have a link, nor the time to google it...but I can tell you from traveling to many U.S. Cities for my business, that empty retail sites are everywhere, and 30% is more than plausible.

maybe you listen to the wrong news sources...

I can tell with complete confidence, as retail real estate is my business, there is no 30% vacancy factor. on average the us shopping center vacancy rate is around 9.7%, with enclosed regional malls at arounf 8.4%. there are, and there always has been, properties which are 30% or more vacant, and there are, and always have been, properties that are 100% occupied. but again, the shopping center market is not 30% vacant.

edit: no, there is not a "30% increase in the vacancy rate", as underdog pointed out there are more vacant retail spaces. the vacancy rate is up about 10-12%. the decrease in consumer spending and the over building of retail space has impacted the shopping center industry. real estate is cyclical, it goes thru this type of adjustment every decade or so. this one is larger and more pervasive than in the last 25 years, but it's just how cycles happen.

As for you tax reduction that you claim...does that mean that our Government is taking in less money, thus they are sensitive to the budget and spending less money.

there was a tax reduction made as a part of the stimulus package, and the marginal rates have not increased.

Prove to me that the Obama Administration and this congress is actually coming in UNDER budget and I will list it as one of the positives for his administration.

odd, who do you believe is making that claim? everybody knows (at least anybody who has credible news sources...) that there is a deficit in federal accounts.

Remember, spending more money that you have, doesn't mean you have a reduction...sooner or later, the bill will be due.

??? the point is that taxes have not increased, which is completely opposite of what you posted, which was

our government is trying to increase the tax burden on Americans

you're wrong. taxes today are less for 9 out of 10 americans.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you're wrong. taxes today are less for 9 out of 10 americans.

to be fair, about 2 in 10 of those americans aren't working, so the fact that they're paying less in income taxes isn't all that remarkable.

[Mavdog]

to be accurate, it's more like 1.6 out of 10 americans aren't working...but then, in reality, from my experience it's more like 3.6 out of 10 americans aren't working...yes, the additional 2 out of 10 americans are employed and have a job, but just because they show up for work and get paid for it doesn't mean that these people are actually "working" if you get my drift.

[dude1394]

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

[dude1394]

Heh...
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...rivileges.html

Dear BARACK OBAMA :
Congratulations! On behalf of the selection committee, I am pleased to announce that you have been named a 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of your tireless efforts to STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY AND COOPERATION .
I am also pleased to tell you that as a winner, you have been pre-approved for membership in the Nobel Peace Player's Club, offering exclusive money-saving benefits available only to laureates like you. Please take a few minutes to look over the enclosed enrollment materials. At only $299.95 per year, I'm sure you'll agree that membership is a bargain at twice the price! Here are just some of the benefits you'll receive:

• A handsome 14-karat gold membership crest badge to display proudly on the grille of your limousine or official state aircraft
• A framed, hand-calligraphed certificate (add $19.95 for gold leaf)
• Special discount shopping bargains for for you and your family
• Great travel packages to the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro
• Listing in "Who's Who of Global Salvation" ($49.95 per copy)
• Great coupons for Olive Garden, P.F. Chang's, Six Flags Theme Parks, and more!

Plus, you'll receive the exclusive Nobel Peace Player's Club GoldCard entitling you to discount air travel and 5-star hotel accommodations from Kyoto to Darfur. But don't take our word for it! Listen to these testimonials from some of our current members:

"My career as an international peace activist means lots of air travel -- and dealing with pushy Zionists and rude natives. With my Nobel Peace Player's Club GoldCard, I finally get the respect I deserve - and it makes getting through Gaza airport security a snap!"
-- Jimmy Carter, 2002 Laureate
"Whether we're patrolling the Congo, Sudan, or Bosnia, one thing's for sure -- chicks can't resist a Nobel Peace Prize Player!"
-- United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, 1988 Winners
"My Players Club GoldCard lets me treat my friends and family to great perks."
-- Kofi Annan, 2001 Laureate
"I'm a take-action kind of guy. Whenever I fly to Tehran or Pyongyang, the first thing I pack is my Players GoldCard."
-- Mohamed ElBaradei (2005)
"I have to write a lot of honorary doctorate acceptance speeches, and writer's block can be a problem. With the Player's GoldCard I got great discounts at TermPapersLab.com!"
-- Rigoberta Menchu (1992)
"The Player's Club GoldCard is recognized everywhere -- even in hell! I redeemed my Players GoldPoints at Club Satan for an exciting eternity of getting pounded up *****. Thanks, NobelCo!"
-- Yasser Arafat (1994)
"Don't miss the boat like I did, comrade! I forgot to enroll, and now I'm spending eternity pounding Yasser Arafat up ******."
-- Le Duc Tho (1973)

So what are you waiting for, BARACK OBAMA ? Enroll today and start enjoying the privileges of membership. Enroll today, and we'll throw in a deluxe leather bound CIA intelligence report worth $1000!
Sincerely,
Ůmläut Ťïldëqvist, Chairman
The Nobel Peace Player's Club Selection Committee

[dude1394]

Those Joker Products!!

The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for jobless benefits rose more than expected last week, after falling in five of the past six weeks.

There is little sign that employers are willing to hire, even as the economy shows signs of recovering.
The Labor Department says new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 531,000 last week, from an upwardly revised 520,000 the previous week. Wall Street economists had expected only a slight increase, according to Thomson Reuters.
The number of people continuing to claim benefits dropped for the fifth straight week to 5.9 million, from just over 6 million the previous week.

[dude1394]

Those Joker Products!

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Prove to me that the Obama Administration and this congress is actually coming in UNDER budget and I will list it as one of the positives for his administration.

Remember, spending more money that you have, doesn't mean you have a reduction...sooner or later, the bill will be due.

You're against everything by Obama that costs money. Why do all the wars not have to be deficit neutral, and everything the Obama administration does has to be. Universal Health Care? Cost neutral or no go! War? Eh, we'll see what we can do.

[Mavdog]

U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
WASHINGTON -- Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades.

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

The U.S. economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, with many economists asserting the worst is past and data pointing to stronger-than-expected growth. On Tuesday, data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year. "There's a method to the madness. We're getting out of this," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight.

Much of the stimulus spending is just beginning to trickle through the economy, with spending expected to peak sometime later this year or in early 2010. The government has funneled about $60 billion of the $288 billion in promised tax cuts to U.S. households, while about $84 billion of the $499 billion in spending has been paid. About $200 billion has been promised to certain projects, such as infrastructure and energy projects.

Bloomberg News U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks last month at the construction site of a new elementary school in Berea, Ohio.
.
Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.

Dave Anderson, chief financial officer of Honeywell International Inc., said the stimulus package actually froze business activity at first as firms tried to figure out how they could benefit from the government spending. The $787 billion package "created actually a slowdown in order activity in terms of the flow that we would normally have anticipated," Mr. Anderson said at a conference sponsored by Morgan Stanley. "We anticipate that that's going to actually pick up in the second half of the year. I think it's not unreasonable to see several hundred million dollars of orders."

Opinion, however, remains split about which program has had the biggest impact. "I don't think the stimulus was necessarily as effective as people claimed it to be or claim it will be," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. He credits the government's "stress tests" of banks, which helped boost confidence on Wall Street and allow banks to raise capital and resume lending.

Economists say other programs are having an impact, including an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers that has spurred home sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, which provided financial incentives for consumers to trade in older vehicles, did the same for cars.

One big question: Will the boost evaporate once the programs end?

Stuart Hoffman, chief U.S. economist for PNC Financial Services Group, said the stimulus package "caused this bit of a concentrated burst [that] probably will exaggerate the pace of economic growth," since some areas, such as auto sales, could fall back to low levels.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

You're against everything by Obama that costs money. Why do all the wars not have to be deficit neutral, and everything the Obama administration does has to be. Universal Health Care? Cost neutral or no go! War? Eh, we'll see what we can do.

Wars end. Social Programs don't, they get bigger and bloated and inefficient and mismanaged. There is no particular Party or level of government to blame for this. There is no reason for SS or Medicare to be on the way to broke either.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Wars end. Social Programs don't, they get bigger and bloated and inefficient and mismanaged. There is no particular Party or level of government to blame for this. There is no reason for SS or Medicare to be on the way to broke either.

Wars end? Not with foreign policy that is in place right now. One could call it the "perpetual war for perpetual peace"-doctrine.

The US has troops in more than a 100 countries right now. War is a temporary government program which after all is always as permanent as a program can possibly be.

[dude1394]

Nice...Barry throws out a "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate. 112K per job created. Might as well just give the money away, it would do a better job.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9PMQ.DTL&tsp=1

Employment mystery

Economists are puzzled as to why job growth has slowed, citing everything from higher health care costs, to higher productivity, to Chinese currency manipulation.
"The answer is, we don't know," said Tim Bartik, a liberal economist with the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Michigan who is proposing a tax credit for employers who hire new workers.
At a cost of $21,000 per job created, he said, a tax credit is far cheaper than the average $112,000 cost of each job created by the stimulus, as calculated by the administration.
Michael Boskin, former top economist in the George H.W. Bush administration, favors a cut in payroll taxes. He said the current stimulus has been "marginally effective at best, and at immense expense," describing it as mainly a "patchwork of wish lists for various constituencies."
University of Maryland economist Peter Morici said the administration's efforts to restore growth by directing spending to such things as alternative energy are too expensive for the number of jobs created and ignore larger problems in the economy.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0UzbRvZU1

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nice...Barry throws out a "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate. 112K per job created. Might as well just give the money away, it would do a better job.

it's amazing how you ignore that which contradicts your message.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.

bottom line, you're continued rant on the stimulus being ineffective is wrong.

[aquaadverse]

Snip.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Arne

Wars end? Not with foreign policy that is in place right now. One could call it the "perpetual war for perpetual peace"-doctrine.

The US has troops in more than a 100 countries right now. War is a temporary government program which after all is always as permanent as a program can possibly be.

Having a military presence isn't the same as war, indeed not having one usually ends up being more costly.

Until we advance to the point of not fighting over resources and conquest by sword gets bred out of us it's reality. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if OBL and Saddam were offered do overs. We had nothing even close to a traditional war size expenditure between the fall of Saigon and 9/11 as a percentage of GDP. Deterrence is pricey but taking direct action is even worse.

It's like saying the armed guards riding in those armored cars picking up deposits invite robbery or those alarm stickers and signs in people's yards say please rob me.

The asshat mess of social programs continually expand and get more resources while delivering less benefit.

We are going to spend more today on social programs than yesterday and more tomorrow than we spend today. Our National Guard will come home and we aren't raining expensive bunker busters and other ordinance nonstop. All wars have peaks and bottoms.

[alexamenos]

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate....For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.

Forecasters and econometric models, which didn't foresee the housing price collapse before and don't account for the status of the Bernanke Buck now, think everything is sunny and peachy. Color me unconvinced.

A few things about most economics forecasters and forecasts....

1) They invariably predict that the economy will soon be growing at ~ 3% per year. A year ahead of the quarterly 5.5% declines (annualized), mainstream forecasts were for ~ 3.0% increases...that is, the mainstream forecasts were 8.5% too optimistic. An excess of optimism is not an unusual thing, as in this case across the sea:

Economists today cast doubt on official data showing that British gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 0.4 per cent between July and September, claiming the surprise fall is far worse than economic reality.

The shock figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the country remained mired in recession during the third quarter — the sixth consecutive quarter of contraction, signalling the country’s longest downturn since records began in 1955.

Economists had widely expected that the country had emerged from recession between July and September.

Shocking! Economists in Britian thought they had long since turned the corner only to find the economy still contracting (by the Government's figures).

2) Econometric forecasts are generally derived from highly complex mathematical/statisical models which measure and predict in minute detail blah blah blah....they're kind of full of shit is what I'm trying to say.

Mathematical / statistical models are fine for predicting that if things keep going the way they've always gone then they'll continue to go they way they have before. That and 50 cents (make that $1.25) will get you a coke. Models of this sort are good for two things: a) telling you something you already know; and b) employing lots of otherwise useless economic analysts. They are lousy for telling you something you didn't already know.

3) Most of the mainstream forecaster types are neo-keynesians...that's why they didn't see the problems coming in the first place, that's why they don't adequately consider the status of the Federal Reserve Note today...these things just aren't in their worldview....

....they're like theologians counting the number of angels that can fit on the head of the pin. Trying to apply a neokeynesian analytical model to the present economic problem is like trying to eat tomato soup with a salad fork, it's just the wrong darn tool.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Having a military presence isn't the same as war, indeed not having one usually ends up being more costly.

Until we advance to the point of not fighting over resources and conquest by sword gets bred out of us it's reality. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if OBL and Saddam were offered do overs. We had nothing even close to a traditional war size expenditure between the fall of Saigon and 9/11 as a percentage of GDP. Deterrence is pricey but taking direct action is even worse.

It's like saying the armed guards riding in those armored cars picking up deposits invite robbery or those alarm stickers and signs in people's yards say please rob me.

The asshat mess of social programs continually expand and get more resources while delivering less benefit.

We are going to spend more today on social programs than yesterday and more tomorrow than we spend today. Our National Guard will come home and we aren't raining expensive bunker busters and other ordinance nonstop. All wars have peaks and bottoms.

Fair enough, but let's make this actually relevant: at which point does it matter anymore? if you spend ten thousand billion million on the war.... how long could you have funded free health care for everyone if the money was used for that instead? We're never going to see this War money again. We need to pull out the troops immediately. I also suggest each troop brings 3 quarts of oil in a tank strapped to his back. That's my exit strategy. http://static.rcgroups.com/forums/at...dead-horse.gif

And no, there's so many threads that I don't know which one to post this in. But I rather refrain from making a new thread; I rather keep the concise nature of the threads which have so kindly been posted here by dude and dad. They've been doing a good job at it. The variety will make even the Amazon's ecosystem blush.

[aquaadverse]

Fair enough, but let's make this actually relevant: at which point does it matter anymore? if you spend ten thousand billion million on the war.... how long could you have funded free health care for everyone if the money was used for that instead?

There is no free anything. Clinton took over with no big threats to us left and spent much money on Haiti and while we were partying hearty a bunch of guys with box knives damn near brought us to our knees. Khrushchev thought Kennedy was a pussy and if you ignore all the revisionist Camelot BS spent most of his term reacting, poorly to the Bear. Blowing the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall etc...lead directly placing Missiles.

While it's really dramatic when the cameras show up to snap a photo or video talking heads interviewing the dude who wasted the guy that entered his house through the easily opened sliding glass door, I'd rather be the dude next door with a secure domicile he shined on because of the Smith and Wesson sign.

Lobbing a few missiles after the Embassy bombings and the law enforcement strategy made this very wasteful action necessary. The Pakis are on the offensive and cooperating. Pulling out as you suggest is handing over the lunch money and will result in an even more costly action later, just like blowing off the Bay of Pigs made Cuba a foothold in this hemisphere.

Crazy ass Iran and North Korea, Chavez and a very nervous Israel makes the stakes more than "free " health care. Think Clinton wouldn't like his demanding OBL from the Taliban and what he choose as the response to the flip off? Not totally blaming him for the resulting mess, but it's pretty clear OBL was expecting some arrested stooges and a few more missiles.

I know we can have an efficient government run military. There is little to suggest the same for the myriad of failed Great Society initiatives. You will see no ebb and flow, just a continual climb.

[dalmations202]

Many people still don't understand that freedom is bought and paid for with blood.

Be it soldiers, peace officers or sometimes even firemen, etc. -- the freedoms we have have are paid for with blood, both past and future.

We may not like it, but there is always a cost.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Many people still don't understand that freedom is bought and paid for with blood.

Be it soldiers, peace officers or sometimes even firemen, etc. -- the freedoms we have have are paid for with blood, both past and future.

We may not like it, but there is always a cost.

Bullsh!t - we're all born free...

Slavery is bought and paid for with blood (because it's YOUR blood, not your ruler's blood, sucker...)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Many people still don't understand that freedom is bought and paid for with blood.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Greneda, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, etc., etc...

....none of these have/had jack shit to do with freedom.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Greneda, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, etc., etc...

....none of these have/had jack shit to do with freedom.

imperialism = freedom


(we freed those savages from having to rule themselves, right?)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Greneda, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, etc., etc...

....none of these have/had jack shit to do with freedom.

really?

tell the north koreans, who live right next to a free and democratic south korea, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

tell the bosnians, who were being murdered by the serbs, the same.

did you see the photos of the women in afganistan who had their schools burned to the ground by the taliban, were not allowed to go to school, or for that matter to leave their homes, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

individual rights are not something that is respected throughout our world. I'm proud to say that our country has many times been an instrument of good in producing these rights for others, and done so with the blood of american soldiers.