agman said:Oldtimer said:agman said:Response....I see you are again just focusing on so called negatives. I have a few basic questions which you obviously must know the answer too or you could not otherwise express a valid concern or opinion.
How many years in the last 50 years has the U.S.been in a trade deficit, fiscal deficit or both? What is the present size of our economy? How much has it grown in the last 50 years? As a percentage of GDP where do both the current trade deficit and fiscal deficit rank? You are aware of the pitfalls of attempting to skew data by using absolute numbers for comparison. During that same period what has been the rate of economic growth, job gains, total employment and income growth in the U.S. How many net jobs have been lost when insourcing, the other side of outsourcing, is taken into consideration? Which countries that have a trade surplus create more jobs, income and economic growth than the U.S. Can you provide any history where protectionism has not been a precursor to economic decline for those countries involved? Can you name any country that is aggressively involved in open and free trade that has suffered economic decline. Do you know the role of protectionist policy and its role in the Great Depression? Many prominent economists argue protectionism ( Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was the root cause of the Great Depression.
If your observation and resultant conclusions from reported so-called negative news is correct how do you in the end explain all the longterm positive growth in the U.S. economy? Could it be that you are constantly looking at the wrong information? The years of econimic growth have proven the doomsday folks wrong for how many decades? Why has our economy not collapsed under all the negative news as you observe? Why is the U.S economy the envy of the world? These are but a few simple and pertinent questions which one must know the correct answers too in order to express any meaningful opinion regrading our economic past, present and future. In closing, the sun shines everday, most people rejoice while others just complain about sunburn.
Agman- Not being a bean counter I do not have those figures--
Response: You said it all OT-you simply do not have enough data at hand to draw a valid opinion. Therefore you respond to perception and here-say. I need not say anymore. Thanks for your honesty regarding your lack of valid and basic economic information and real understanding of such information.
Oldtimer said:[
Agman- Not being a bean counter I do not have those figures--
Response: You said it all OT-you simply do not have enough data at hand to draw a valid opinion. Therefore you respond to perception and here-say. I need not say anymore. Thanks for your honesty regarding your lack of valid and basic economic information and real understanding of such information.
Oldtimer said:As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 98 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......
Brad S said:Agman was a great poster, I miss him
Brad S said:Yes, I know him. Soap weed knows him pretty well. I think he decided this venue posed too many liabilities for his situation.
Brad S said:Yes, I know him. Soap weed knows him pretty well. I think he decided this venue posed too many liabilities for his situation.
Oldtimer said:agman said:Oldtimer said:As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....But I predict that his unbending pro big business economical direction, trade deficits, evergrowing US budget deficit, and continuing support of trade agreements at the loss of US jobs and income, - many of which are opposed by both most liberals and many conservatives will, along with the Liberal attack against the Iraq war lead to the ultimate disaster for the US-- Hillary will walk into office in 08 on the coattails of what GW left dragging........Then God help us all......
Response....I see you are again just focusing on so called negatives. I have a few basic questions which you obviously must know the answer too or you could not otherwise express a valid concern or opinion.
How many years in the last 50 years has the U.S.been in a trade deficit, fiscal deficit or both? What is the present size of our economy? How much has it grown in the last 50 years? As a percentage of GDP where do both the current trade deficit and fiscal deficit rank? You are aware of the pitfalls of attempting to skew data by using absolute numbers for comparison. During that same period what has been the rate of economic growth, job gains, total employment and income growth in the U.S. How many net jobs have been lost when insourcing, the other side of outsourcing, is taken into consideration? Which countries that have a trade surplus create more jobs, income and economic growth than the U.S. Can you provide any history where protectionism has not been a precursor to economic decline for those countries involved? Can you name any country that is aggressively involved in open and free trade that has suffered economic decline. Do you know the role of protectionist policy and its role in the Great Depression? Many prominent economists argue protectionism ( Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was the root cause of the Great Depression.
If your observation and resultant conclusions from reported so-called negative news is correct how do you in the end explain all the longterm positive growth in the U.S. economy? Could it be that you are constantly looking at the wrong information? The years of econimic growth have proven the doomsday folks wrong for how many decades? Why has our economy not collapsed under all the negative news as you observe? Why is the U.S economy the envy of the world? These are but a few simple and pertinent questions which one must know the correct answers too in order to express any meaningful opinion regrading our economic past, present and future. In closing, the sun shines everday, most people rejoice while others just complain about sunburn.
Agman- Not being a bean counter I do not have those figures-- but I do know when the local economy is good and when it is bad--something maybe some in the penthouse offices don't see as much....NAFTA was not good to many in the US rural community- or the US blue collar worker-- so its hard to put faith in all the other "AFTA's"...Also the switch nation wide from a producing country to a service country is not raising the standard of living- we have less haves and more have nots--100+ year old ranches that are being sold for hunting and vacation estates for the rich... Its only my opinion- but If the Republican party doesn't get their head out of their b*tt and quit blindly following the corporate worlds sending all business and production overseas- while giving up our nations food production to develop third world countrys, it will create a big enough rift internally that Hillary will do like Bill did to Bush 1-- walk in unchallenged--and it will not even take a Ross Perot to do it.......You can't say no, or wait, forever to the middleclass without getting a backlash....Remember their is a huge group in this country that are not like you that have a Republican party ID number tattoed on your forearm-they swing as the pendulum swings--And like I said before it could open things wide open for Hilary (God forbid).......
I wasn't far off from being totally right..
Oldtimer said:I wasn't far off from being totally right.. This was about the time that all the Bush lies about the war began to become evident--
Now 2W, you've already asked him this question a hundred times and he hasn't answered. What makes you think he's going to answer your "trick" question this time? :lol: :lol: :lol:Whitewing said:Oldtimer said:I wasn't far off from being totally right.. This was about the time that all the Bush lies about the war began to become evident--
Name one. One.
Whitewing said:Oldtimer said:I wasn't far off from being totally right.. This was about the time that all the Bush lies about the war began to become evident--
Name one. One.
CAKEWALK
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02
"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02
"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03
HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?
"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02
"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03
"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05
"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06
WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03
"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02
"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03
"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03
"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03
"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03
HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?
"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03
"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03
"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03
"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03
"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
Mike said:What a G_d-damn narcissistic, egomaniacal, vain, and self serving SUMBEACH you are!!!
Oldtimer said:Whitewing said:Oldtimer said:I wasn't far off from being totally right.. This was about the time that all the Bush lies about the war began to become evident--
Name one. One.
Take your pick!
CAKEWALK
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02
"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02
"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03
HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?
"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02
"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03
"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05
"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06
WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03
"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02
"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03
"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03
"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03
"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03
HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?
"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03
"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03
"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03
"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03
"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
The major one was uncovered during the Congressional hearings when it was shown that the NSA report given to Congress had been altered/censored which removed the section which said that Iraq was no threat to the US status- which totally misled the Congress in its decision making...
Then we have all of the above, mostly from Bush boys--- are they just incompetent mistakes or flat out lies... :???:
Doesn't matter- they still put Obama in office....And they still might play a big role in putting Hillary into the White House in 2016 if Iraq goes the way I think it will...
Mike said:Sidney Blumenthal was the one that tried to say Bush lied about intelligence, but was proven to be a TOTAL liar himself, just like Fatsquatch.
No telling how many lies he told simply because he is a Republican hater and true to the core Democrat.
There is NO proof Bush lied about anything. Just a few Democrats claiming it. Just like the flaming idiot that claims it here.
:roll:
