i never said it wasnt bi....egg. i said it was under clinton. you said no. now you agree with him. fuck sake.Varegg wrote:
Then we pretty much agree ... key word here is bipartisan and that seems to escape most people ...FEOS wrote:
It's been well-documented that the root of the housing bubble and the root of the securities mess was bipartisan legislation that had its start in 1994, focused on getting less-than-ideal borrowers into homes. Had that legislation not passed during the Clinton administration (as pointed out by Marine), neither the housing bubble nor the securities mess would have occurred, as there would have been nothing to fuel either of them. Specifically: subprime mortgages.Varegg wrote:
I know it very well, I even warned about it a year or so in advance on this very forum but only got BS responces that it wasn't a problem ...
The housing bubble wouldn't have caused so much havok if it wasn't for such a unregulated or misregulated financial market, the housing bubble was just the trigger that got the ball rolling ... without the housing bubble you may have crashed even harder on a later date but it would have crashed eventually ...
And when things go bad as they did it is a clear advantage to not be in spending spree of biblical proportions ... Clinton tried to tone down spending while Bush gave full throttle ...A tad more than nothing seeing as that money was being spent at a time where those very exspenses should have been used inside the US and not abroad ...FEOS wrote:
And in comparison to that, the impact of the Iraq War is nothing, budgetarily.
$58B, of which $37.1B was for the wars (plural--not just Iraq). Compared to an overall federal budget in 2010 of $879B. That's 4.2% of the entire budget. Of course, that's not the entire cost, as there was $130B in the FY10 DoD budget for "overseas contingency operations" (Obama Administrationspeak for war), so the entire cost for FY10 was $167.1B, or 19% of the entire budget. Still not a hugely significant amount in comparison to what is being spent on social programs.Varegg wrote:
Seeing the numbers makes it quite more than a drop in the bucket FEOS
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy … plemental/
^^ And that's just 2010
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What I'm saying is that you have no experiential basis upon which to make these assertions that Country X is a better place to live than the US (or Country Y), as you apparently haven't traveled outside of the US at all.Turquoise wrote:
Quality of life has an analytical side as well. Some things can be gathered through statistics. For example, I don't need to live in Uganda to know that it sucks.FEOS wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all.
There's a difference between commenting on foreign policy and commenting on what it's like to live in another country.
They are separate and distinct issues. One is analytical and one is experiential.
I don't need to live in Norway to know that it has one of the highest standards of living as measured by things like PPP.
That means your opinion is based solely on the "analyses" of others' opinions of other countries, rather than first-hand experience of life outside of the US--for even a visit.
And you don't know that Uganda sucks. You assume that it sucks because you read some statistics. I bet some parts of Uganda are just fine. And other parts probably suck ass. Just like France. And the US. And Korea. And Colombia. Location, location, location.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But we kick your ass over the long term. Long term's what's important, right?Varegg wrote:
True ... [sarcasm]but our regulated -1% still beats your cowboy economy -3.4% [/sarcasm]JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, you're better off than the US for 2009 We were at -3.4%.Varegg wrote:
And then again using 2009 numbers in a long term field as growth is ... is kinda ... ???
Just pointing out that no country is recession-proof no matter how heavily regulated.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
turq just needs to gtfo since he thinks the grass is greener. sick of hearing his mouth tbh. ban him until he has a norway IP
Well then, I'll remember to put North Korea at the top of my first trip. I'm sure it's very nice.FEOS wrote:
What I'm saying is that you have no experiential basis upon which to make these assertions that Country X is a better place to live than the US (or Country Y), as you apparently haven't traveled outside of the US at all.
That means your opinion is based solely on the "analyses" of others' opinions of other countries, rather than first-hand experience of life outside of the US--for even a visit.
And you don't know that Uganda sucks. You assume that it sucks because you read some statistics. I bet some parts of Uganda are just fine. And other parts probably suck ass. Just like France. And the US. And Korea. And Colombia. Location, location, location.
You're such a charmer.11 Bravo wrote:
turq just needs to gtfo since he thinks the grass is greener. sick of hearing his mouth tbh. ban him until he has a norway IP
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-14 18:46:01)
Norway ~= Minnesota in GDP
ya whatever turq you have been spewing that shit for like 5 years. sack up or shut up.
Oh don't worry... I'll change.... you'll see.11 Bravo wrote:
ya whatever turq you have been spewing that shit for like 5 years. sack up or shut up.
If you didn't run the risk of random arrest and imprisonment...Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I'll remember to put North Korea at the top of my first trip. I'm sure it's very nice.FEOS wrote:
And you don't know that Uganda sucks. You assume that it sucks because you read some statistics. I bet some parts of Uganda are just fine. And other parts probably suck ass. Just like France. And the US. And Korea. And Colombia. Location, location, location.
Clearly, I was referring to South Korea. Smartass.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lol... Hey, South Korea supposedly has a pretty awesome internet infrastructure... way too crowded for my tastes though...FEOS wrote:
If you didn't run the risk of random arrest and imprisonment...Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I'll remember to put North Korea at the top of my first trip. I'm sure it's very nice.FEOS wrote:
What I'm saying is that you have no experiential basis upon which to make these assertions that Country X is a better place to live than the US (or Country Y), as you apparently haven't traveled outside of the US at all.
That means your opinion is based solely on the "analyses" of others' opinions of other countries, rather than first-hand experience of life outside of the US--for even a visit.
And you don't know that Uganda sucks. You assume that it sucks because you read some statistics. I bet some parts of Uganda are just fine. And other parts probably suck ass. Just like France. And the US. And Korea. And Colombia. Location, location, location.
Clearly, I was referring to South Korea. Smartass.
You did?FEOS wrote:
But we kick your ass over the long term. Long term's what's important, right?Varegg wrote:
True ... [sarcasm]but our regulated -1% still beats your cowboy economy -3.4% [/sarcasm]JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, you're better off than the US for 2009 We were at -3.4%.
Just pointing out that no country is recession-proof no matter how heavily regulated.
By the looks of it you kicked your own ass
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Sweet! Washington could make its own Ottoman Empire and conquer Israel and the Ukraine!
youre boringVaregg wrote:
You did?FEOS wrote:
But we kick your ass over the long term. Long term's what's important, right?Varegg wrote:
True ... [sarcasm]but our regulated -1% still beats your cowboy economy -3.4% [/sarcasm]
By the looks of it you kicked your own ass
19% of the budget is not hugely significant?FEOS wrote:
$58B, of which $37.1B was for the wars (plural--not just Iraq). Compared to an overall federal budget in 2010 of $879B. That's 4.2% of the entire budget. Of course, that's not the entire cost, as there was $130B in the FY10 DoD budget for "overseas contingency operations" (Obama Administrationspeak for war), so the entire cost for FY10 was $167.1B, or 19% of the entire budget. Still not a hugely significant amount in comparison to what is being spent on social programs.Varegg wrote:
Seeing the numbers makes it quite more than a drop in the bucket FEOS
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy … plemental/
^^ And that's just 2010
Compared to 'social programs' how much of that is recycled into the economy and how much is burnt up abroad?
Fuck Israel
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
I need around tree fiddy.
wars generate jobs like a motherf...
Why do that when you can blow it on kerosene and diesel for military vehicles?DonFck wrote:
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
Fuck Israel
trolltasticDilbert_X wrote:
Why do that when you can blow it on kerosene and diesel for military vehicles?DonFck wrote:
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
MIC niggah11 Bravo wrote:
wars generate jobs like a motherf...
Oops, forgot munitions.11 Bravo wrote:
trolltasticDilbert_X wrote:
Why do that when you can blow it on kerosene and diesel for military vehicles?DonFck wrote:
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
The point is, its just pissed away in the wind.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-15 00:38:08)
Fuck Israel
well its not your money so dont you worry your pretty face
Your country is in recession, mine isn't, suck it.11 Bravo wrote:
well its not your money so dont you worry your pretty face
Fuck Israel
Yeah but in Australia birds are faster than the internet.Dilbert_X wrote:
Your country is in recession, mine isn't, suck it.11 Bravo wrote:
well its not your money so dont you worry your pretty face