BF2S Forums America going broke?

Bubbalo wrote:

topthrill05 wrote:

Your not from this country so, keep it to your self.

Oh, so the fact that he isn't from America means he doesn't understand economics?

On top of what Bubbalo said, it doesn't take an American to recognize that Bush has done more harm then good for your country.  Hell, when was the last time you hard anyone, and I mean ANYONE say something GOOD about Bush?

I admit bush is a total fucktard and he makes me ashamed to be an american but going broke lol hardly. And taking canada down with us lol there just a bunch of eh holes anyways (not really just wanted to use eh holes lol)

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad.  Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!

Bush himself isn't a bad person, morally that is, and normally would have been a relatively harmless one term president but he had one stroke of luck and held onto that lead jsut long enough to defeat a second weak democratic candidate.  He is a nice guy who seems like the common man and is well-managed (in terms of appelaing to middle-america and keeping those crazy yet vocal protestant christian groups happy), it's just his administration is a failure on almost every level.  He seems somewhat incompetent and incapable, but Kerry seemed weak and because he was form Massachusetts was connected to the gay marriage issue in a negative way.  Apparently a majority of my country felt that it was better to stick with a nice guy who was proven to be incompetent and in bad hands (I'm speaking of Karl Rove and his loyalty to his base) in terms of influences because they just didn't like the rich stiff from New England (altohugh Bush is alll those things except a stiff) who may or may not threaten their way of life and "family values and morals"  I think a lot of Americans may have voted for Bush just to sitck it to Europe and the rest of the world because you were heavily in favor of Kerry and for some reason we like to play into the "us (or US) against the world" mentality like we're a sports team trying to get pumped up and we really wanted to piss you off after not havign our backs with the War in Iraq.  Apparently a great deal of us hate Europe and gays more than the president with the approval rating barely above freezing (a little Fahrenheit joke for all the non-metrics out there, good luck with that one rest of the world, how's it feel now?

BTW, how the hell did you guys not defeat Tony Blair and the Labour party when his approval rating his so low?  No one liked him, but your system of getting a PM is probably even shittier than the way we get a president so he stayed.

kr@cker wrote:

again, all money comes through congress, it's not the sole responsibility of the president, we can stop alot of that crap if they'd pass the line item veto, but Clinton's great plan was to not spend any money at all, and give as many federal employees pinkslips as possible

The line item veto is an awful idea, it is an assault on the balance of power between the three branches of government and would be used and abused by an executive in such a way that would be completely unfair to congress and the political process of lawmaking.  People say it would cut down on "pork barrel spending" but what would really cut down on pork is greedy senators and congressmen not putting frivolous spending in appropriations bills int eh first place.  Besides, our government is much too large and bureaucratic to ever run anywhere near 100% efficiently and we should probably try to cut the deficit by simply not letting spending on major things get out of control whether than giving one man the power to nitpick and pick and choose elements of a bill without any checks.

I love how whenever confronted with an argument some people, rather than actually saying why it's wrong, will tell people to shut up because they aren't from America.  Here's a hint: if you don't want a response from overseas, don't post on an international forum.

kr@cker wrote:

and the BBC (well BBCA at least) is almost as bad as al-jazeera

and the conservative networks are as bad as "Big Brother" from 1984

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad.  Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!

He stole the second term with the help of his brother, before anyone knew what happened congress voted in George w again. Thats what happens when you spend $20 million + and still cant win. Bush = Statpadder.

Bubbalo wrote:

stryyker wrote:

god forbid we give finanical aid to alot of other countries,

US aid falls far short of UN targets, and there are countries which (in percentage terms) give more aid)

This again?  1) in absolute terms, the US gives more aid than any other country.  2) Counting aid given by private and public entities, the US among the top five donors in the world in percentage terms as well.  Your criticism counts only public donations; private donations are far higher.

Complaints that the US doesn't give enough are ill considered cheap shots.  We give plenty, and little is accomplished with the donations.

Nomer wrote:

...and for some reason we like to play into the "us (or US) against the world" mentality like we're a sports team trying to get pumped up and we really wanted to piss you off after not havign our backs with the War in Iraq.

I don't see that at all.  I would say we conduct our internal politics without regard for foreign opinions.  Which is how it should be.

Nomer wrote:

The line item veto is an awful idea, it is an assault on the balance of power between the three branches of government and would be used and abused by an executive in such a way that would be completely unfair to congress and the political process of lawmaking.  People say it would cut down on "pork barrel spending" but what would really cut down on pork is greedy senators and congressmen not putting frivolous spending in appropriations bills int eh first place.  Besides, our government is much too large and bureaucratic to ever run anywhere near 100% efficiently and we should probably try to cut the deficit by simply not letting spending on major things get out of control whether than giving one man the power to nitpick and pick and choose elements of a bill without any checks.

I strongly disagree.  First of all, if one looks at the checks and balances, one sees that the checks the executive has over the legislative branch are lacking.  The legislature writes the laws which the executive must carry out or face impeachment.  Two very strong checks.  The executive has a veto over legislative decisions, which can be overriden.  A substantial check, but the only one, and weak in the face of the riders and agenda attached to most bills these days.  This amounts to a delaying tactic only.

The line item veto would not only increase the power of the only check the Executive has over the legislature, but it would address a critical failure that the Authors of the Constitution failed to forsee.  The Constituency of individual legislators is their home districts/states ONLY.  It is therefore in their best interest to get as much pork back to their constituency as possible, regardless of the consequences to the nation as a whole.  The ONLY person whose Constituency is the nation as a whole is the President, and his ability to hinder the pork is non-existent.  The line item Veto would change that, by allowing the Views of the entire country (represented by the President) have a shot at stripping out the pork destined for only one area.  The impact on the 'balances' you imply will be large, is actually minimal; Congress can still override the line item veto and enact the parts of the bill the President removes.  I don't see how this could be bad for the country, which is distinct from seeing that it is unconstitutional.  The Supreme court says it is unconstitutional, and I can see their point.  That being the case, an amendment should be passed, as this would benefit everyone except those dependent upon pork.

kr@cker wrote:

...apparently people in massachusetts have problems wiping so they need people like him and ted to kiss their ass all the time...

Neither true, nor appropriate.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-14 06:34:21)

topthrill05 wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad.  Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!

Your not from this country so, keep it to your self.

But if you really want to know. John Kerry would of screwed the country up more than it already is.

Although that is for another thread.

Wow an American telling another , you dont understand this country butt out,,,,hmm reminds me of something

BigmacK192 wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad.  Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!

Keep your comments "across the pond" mate. This is our issue. Don't talk like you know everything. And what you hear on the liberal news networks isn't necessarially "fact".

Yes because the media is paid to lie, that really starts to pull in the ratings. I'd rather watch the care bears for my news then the actually news??? what's wrong with people
and whittsend(I think that's close enought) don't you think it's kinda stupid to give so much when we don't have it to give?? I would rather infastructures in our city's and an actually econimy be built up in our country then Iraq, or Isreal for that matter.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-07-14 07:29:39)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

whittsend(I think that's close enought) don't you think it's kinda stupid to give so much when we don't have it to give?? I would rather infastructures in our city's and an actually econimy be built up in our country then Iraq, or Isreal for that matter.

I believe that any compulsory redistribution of wealth under the threat of force, foreign or domestic, is wrong.  The amusing part is that the American people give far more of their free will than they do under compulsion.

Regardless, the issue being discussed with Bubbalo is whether we do, in fact, give.  Not whether we should.

topthrill05 wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

If, by 2041, the US is paying more interest on its loans then it earns in tax revenue then your all fooked but i doubt it will get that bad.  Bush sucks ass, why the fuck did you give him a second term? Duh!!!

Your not from this country so, keep it to your self.

Half the world could say that to the United States of America !!!

Maybe that is the reason why USA goes broke, minding too many things outside their own country, have you seen the ammount of money spend on the war against Iraq alone?

Recovering from the second world war, give me a break

And just say that we crappy europeans own the USA so much, just don't forget who the real pioneers were when the USA got settled!