Us vs. rest of the world

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 18 2002,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Europe's objections against USA are not because we don't like USA. On the contrary. Europe is the loving parent that tries to talk its kid into some sense. The kid is growing up, getting its own ideas and disagrees with the parents. It's all normal. It's all natural. USA is growing. It is no longer a small naive nation but it is yet not mature. It doesn't have the experience that it's parents, the European countries have. It is physically strong but still very unsecure. It wants to go its own way, and has its own ideas but is still in need of guidance from the parents<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but our parents are all becoming socialist. Something we have been fighting tooth and nail since WWII. Time for your pill grandpa. Is the nurse taking good care of you? <span id='postcolor'>

My family have been land owners for centuries, ask some of them about socialism and they go red in the face and start off on a tirade.

I don't know many peaceniks or raving liberals.

Please remember, there hasn't been many important wars that Britain hasn't been in and she's had plenty of her own. We don't need America to tell us about fighting thank you very much!

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 18 2002,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Third of all you only got your liberty because the British decided that you were not worth the effort.<span id='postcolor'>

Did you figure that one out all by yourself? That was part of Washington's strategy; to win by wearing down you enemy. We could have gained independence solely through military victory (with a little French help, of course), it was just easier to make Britain think it wasn't worth it. That's called intelligence.

As for the EU-nics they have no authority to tell the US what to do. That stuff about "good parenting" is all BS. It's the US that is a parent to the rest of the world. We send troops, aid, etc. all over the freaking place. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. In WW2, Britain and France's appeasement policy brought the whole world into the war. The US, like a good parent, bailed them out and then helped rebuild the continent. When was the last time that the US relied on foreign aid? We are the parents. When you guys say that europe needs to parent the US and give guidance, what the hell are you talking about? Guide us in what?

Then there's the socialism BS that people like to cheer. I'm sorry, but I can't condone stealing peoples money. The government pays for crackheads (generic term for bums, loser, and other scun) with babies popping out three at a time, which in turn keeps people from getting cancer treatment that they need. It's happened in every single country with socialized health care. Canada is not a better place to live than the US, I'm sorry. Their health care system blows. You have to wait a few months while cancer eats away at you, so that the government can afford to pay for crackheads. And the crackheads don't even pay their fair share, they sit at home all day collecting welfare checks. Socialism results in an impaired society. The Soviet Union's economy collapsed because socialism was so bad. Cuba used to have a great economy, then Castro came when with his idealism BS and screwed it all up. Capitalism always beats socialism. I think this quote sums it up:

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand)

Okay, next topic. The EU-nics turn everything in the UN into a bunch of petty politics. They booted the US, the country with the greatest human rights record, of of the council on human rights!!! Why in the hell did they do that unless to punish the US. Do you really think that things will be different in the ICC? They're going to use it like they use everything else to punish the US. Europe expects us to send our troops all over the world to babysit, and then they want to subject them to the review of the ICC (aka the court of international political opinion). After the whole thing in Kosovo, one UN review board took months to clear the US of war crimes charges. And what did they do about the warlords who killed people? Oh they got a few, but two of the biggest are still at large.

And finally:

To the person who said, "I want Clinton back," WTF is your major malfunction? All of the coroporate corruption (Enron, Worldcom) started under his administration. It's his fault.

[brgnorway 0]

I am somewhat tired of these discussions. For me it kind of sums up the differences on how to argue. A fair amount of european forum members try to be analytical. Americans on the other hand persistently pursuit the "-ism" arguments like: If you beg to differ you surely must be pinky commies, euro-whiners, socialists and so forth. If you are not with us - you are against us. That kind of shitty dilemma rules out any nuances and leaves everything black or white. To me that is ignorant. Furthermore, the constant reminding about "who's ass would not have been saved had it not been for the US", is utter rubbish. It was after all a combined effort that won the war. Don't forget that USA was rather hesitant about getting involved in WWII. USA did not enter the scene because of compassion or sentimentality, but because they all of a sudden were declared war on.

Oh, and not to forget - don't be so hypocritical as claiming the Marshall help was pure altruism. It wasn't. If anything, you sure as hell earned on it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

LOL...EU is parent and US is a teenager...dumbest argument of the day

yeah, right...EU is so mature that they decided to have 2 wars, and first one was so great that it was dubbed 'the war to end all wars'., only to prove themselves wrong. i'd say that EU is clining to the glorious past of colonial exploitation.

The difference that US holds from other major countries is that it's an experimental country. what i mean is that unlike m ost countries and their developments, US started out from collection of 'new' ideas. Most countries experienced rigidly defined social structure for significant period of time, thus establishing status quo to certain degree. that is very natural instinct, since humans want orders. however, US started out with less rigid social structure and is so far 250years or so into it.

so does that mean US is unfit? nah~~ i'd say that we are more of celebrity that gets sneared by fans who know they want piece of it, but don't want to admit it.

and speaking of Afghan support. I think this illustrates a funny point. If US continued support for Afghanistan, wouldn't another extremist call that another great Satan's exploitation of their land?

[ralphwiggum 6]

hhmm..i must revise my dumbest argument of the day...i see both sides are making dumb arguments...

"It's the US that is a parent to the rest of the world"

"Cuba used to have a great economy, then Castro came when with his idealism BS and screwed it all up"

"They booted the US, the country with the greatest human rights record, of of the council on human rights!!!  "

"To the person who said, "I want Clinton back," WTF is your major malfunction?  All of the coroporate corruption (Enron, Worldcom) started under his administration.  It's his fault."

"A fair amount of european forum members try to be analytical. Americans on the other hand persistently pursuit the "-ism" arguments like:"

billytran:

BUSH MESSED UP THE WHOLE ECONOMY! Excuse me? So Clinton ordered executives to start cooking books? Even Bush himself is currently in hot waters for inconsistencies in his stock selling before whatever that company got in financial trouble. During Clinton's administration, US economy had drastic increase, while Bush Sr. had depression.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"A fair amount of european forum members try to be analytical. Americans on the other hand persistently pursuit the "-ism" arguments like:"<span id='postcolor'>

Ok - I'll admit that one. What can I say but.. silly!

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok..my intention of putting this thread up was to talk about roles of Us and rest of the world in polite manner, but somehow it's becoming a flame thread...better ask mods to close it.

EDIT: ahhh...crap..where are mods when you need them? they always show up when they are unwanted...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok..my intention of putting this thread up was to talk about roles of Us and rest of the world in polite manner, but somehow it's becoming a flame thread...better ask mods to close it. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, the thread was a good idea. To bad they allways end up like they do.

By the way, Wiggum sounds norwegian or at least scandinavian. Is it?

[ralphwiggum 6]

I have no idea if "Wiggum" is Scandinavian origin. This is not my real name. it's the name from animated sitcom "the Simpsons"

[PitViper 0]

Europe = giant leech on the U.S defense budget for the last half century.  That pretty much sums it up funny how they complain about our defense spending also

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ July 18 2002,05:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Europe = giant leech on the U.S defense budget for the last half century.  That pretty much sums it up funny how they complain about our defense spending also <span id='postcolor'>

You are right about that. Norway is filled up with stored US equipment just in case of a war. To bad it's almost obsolete now. Do you think you could be so kind to give us som new stuff??

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">billytran:

BUSH MESSED UP THE WHOLE ECONOMY! Excuse me? So Clinton ordered executives to start cooking books? Even Bush himself is currently in hot waters for inconsistencies in his stock selling before whatever that company got in financial trouble. During Clinton's administration, US economy had drastic increase, while Bush Sr. had depression.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the corporate criminals messed up the economy. Clinton didn't order them to cook books, but if it started under his watch he should take responsibility. The blame certainly doesn't go to Bush for what the CEO's and other executives did. I blame Clinton because all of our economic problems started under him. The small recession started as Clinton was leaving office, you can't blame that on Bush. The cooking of books was not Bush's fault, it started under Clinton's watch. So, what exactly are you saying Bush did to mess up the economy?

By the way, the SEC already investigated Bush and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 18 2002,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cuba used to have a great economy, then Castro came when with his idealism BS and screwed it all up.  Capitalism always beats socialism.  <span id='postcolor'>

[sarcasm] Oh yep, it was a wonderful economy. So wonderful in fact, that all the people, sick of their good fortune, flocked to the Sierra Maestra mountains to join a ragtag army that started out with a dozen men. Yep, those poor naive well-to- do idealistic fools were so desperate to follow their ideals, and so pissed off at the country's flourishing economy, that they took on a US trained, equiped, and funded military. I guess they must have been tired of living the good life [end sarcasm]

I'm not defending Castro, the bastard's become what he set out to defeat. But get your shit straight. Truth is, the majority of Cubans have been opressed and impoverished ever since Spain discovered it in the 1500s.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 18 2002,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, the corporate criminals messed up the economy.  Clinton didn't order them to cook books, but if it started under his watch he should take responsibility.  The blame certainly doesn't go to Bush for what the CEO's and other executives did.  I blame Clinton because all of our economic problems started under him.  The small recession started as Clinton was leaving office, you can't blame that on Bush.  The cooking of books was not Bush's fault, it started under Clinton's watch.  So, what exactly are you saying Bush did to mess up the economy?

By the way, the SEC already investigated Bush and found no evidence of wrongdoing.<span id='postcolor'>

geeze? isn't it republican who always value 'the invisible hands' and smaller gov't? now they are attacking Clinton for following that?(If he ever did).

Let me give you a brief history of US economy during 90s. During 80s, Reagan's policy to expand gov't spending resulted in national debt increase, which resulted in fall of consumer confidence while incertainty of future drove interests high, thus creating contraction in private sector. so it went on and on until Bush Sr. took office. and from 80-92, it was Republicans's heaven.

when Clinton became president in 1992, he slashed 14 BILLION from gov't spending, which resulted in short-term increase in unemployemnt rate, but years after that, such decrease in gov't spending allowed lower interest rates, thus revitalizing consumer spending, thus paving way for significant growth during his terms.

and when did current 'recession' start? March of 2001. And when did Bush became president? Jan. 2001. See the point? (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/)

and puh leez...does gov't have to check EVERYTHING? then welcome to Owellian society! Clinton can't be everywhere at once, and so is Bush. During Clinton's term, introducing new legislation to make corporates held accountable was always met with Republicans's veto. And currently, I don't hear any die0hard republican congressmembers calling CLinton irresposible. Do you know why? Cause they are the ones that blocked Clinton's attempts to hold corporates accountable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, the SEC already investigated Bush and found no evidence of wrongdoing.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, an investigation that did not interview Bush and other high executives. and he filed 38 months late.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">geeze? isn't it republican who always value 'the invisible hands' and smaller gov't? now they are attacking Clinton for following that?(If he ever did).<span id='postcolor'>

Clinton doesn't believe in the free market. He is a selfish immoral person who will do anything and everything to cheat his way to his own personal gain.  if anything,  alot of executives were simply emboldened by the criminal-in-chief.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me give you a brief history of US economy during 90s. During 80s, Reagan's policy to expand gov't spending resulted in national debt increase, which resulted in fall of consumer confidence while incertainty of future drove interests high, thus creating contraction in private sector. so it went on and on until Bush Sr. took office. and from 80-92, it was Republicans's heaven.<span id='postcolor'>

nice try, but totally off.  Carter was president in the 70's and lead the U.S into the worst recession in quite a long time.  His policies cause stagflation and he gutted the military (as evidenced by the Delta Force's failure to even get near our prisoners in Iran).  The country was in the doldrums.  Reagan was then elected and committed to rebuilding the broken military.  Since the Democrats controlled the congress and thus the budget,  he had to barter military increases with increased social spending in order to fulfill his promise.  He also got a tax cut through which would free up alot of investment capital which would find its way into the dotcoms and technology industry during the 90's (fueling the boom).  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">when Clinton became president in 1992, he slashed 14 BILLION from gov't spending, which resulted in short-term increase in unemployemnt rate, but years after that, such decrease in gov't spending allowed lower interest rates, thus revitalizing consumer spending, thus paving way for significant growth during his terms.<span id='postcolor'>

When Clinton took office,  he raised taxes on the middle class which created effects later in his presidency resulting in less investment and thus the eventual recession.  His "cuts" in spending were actually another democrat attempt at gutting the military (which significantly hurt the military again in the 90's) combined with a subtle increase in the federal bureaucracy (all the while claiming to be shrinking government).  

Basically, CEO's got greedy on the decade long boom, while the government hampered investment in the 90's through increased taxation and further social entitlements and also left the military a mess for Bush to have to fix.  

Did you get your "recent history" from the public school system in LA?

[billytran 0]

Ralph,

Are you saying that Reagan messed up the economy too? Uh, he saved it. Reagan came in after Carter had completely screw our economy. The Reagan Expansion between 1983-89 the economy grew by 3.2% compared to 2.4% for Clinton. And Reagan's expansion included a recession too. Unemployment and inflation also fell. The good economy helped the computer industry really grow too.

The Clinton growth was merely a continuation of the Reagan growth. The Republicans made Clinton agree to a balanced budget and welfare reform. Another thing that helped with the Clinton growth was the fact that Clinton could cut defense spending. In fact, the only reason why Clinton could reduce the defense budget is because Reagan was able to defeat the Soviet Union.

And are you also saying that you're a better judge of economic practice than the SEC? Please, Bush did nothing wrong... face it.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Persoanally I do not want to be anything like the Euro govermenst, no offense inteneded. America is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth,imo, and I think we need to get less involved in the world. Let countries fight wars for themselves, i.e. ww1 and Samalia. We have helped Europe through so much but they do not apperciate it, they wan't even support an attack on Iraq! Europe is way to liberal for me, and it is a place I would like to vistit, but I would never want to live naywhere but the good ol' U.S. of A.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Carter was president in the 70's and lead the U.S into the worst recession in quite a long time. His policies cause stagflation and he gutted the military (as evidenced by the Delta Force's failure to even get near our prisoners in Iran). The country was in the doldrums. Reagan was then elected and committed to rebuilding the broken military. Since the Democrats controlled the congress and thus the budget, he had to barter military increases with increased social spending in order to fulfill his promise. He also got a tax cut through which would free up alot of investment capital which <span id='postcolor'>

Delta Forces miserable failure AFAIK was due to incompetency in upper levels. they couldn't even get simple coordination(ok not that simple ) and it was just horrible as it was executed. Maybe you are getting something wrong here. Congress approves budget that executive branch executes. If your saying is correct, than if anything, Reagan would have hard time inceasing budget. But apparently he did. his tax cut tuned out to be a total fiasco, resulting in lack of gov't revenue, which was substituted with the increase in gov't spending, mostly through issuing T-bills. And this abundance of T-Bills is what got investment going on.(more good, less the price, thus more ppl buy it).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When Clinton took office, he raised taxes on the middle class which would not take effect until late in his presidency resulting in less investment and thus the eventual recession. His "cuts" in spending were actually another democrat attempt at gutting the military (which significantly hurt the military again in the mid 90's) combined with a subtle increase in the federal bureaucracy.<span id='postcolor'>

"Read my lips" was what Bush Sr said, but he didn't keep his promise of no increase in overall taxes. During Bush's term, it was him that inceased in various taxes in attempt to close the national debt gap. And that called for recession to hop in. And your claim is that Clinton is the eventual provider of less investment, but how could you explain the investment increase in IT related fields? Just because you guys were hurt doens't mean that the whole nation got hurt. there are more than military in a nation, that is as significant as it. Yes, and cuts in gov't spending was attempt of increasing bureacracy.(yeah right)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Basically, CEO's got greedy on the decade long boom, while the government hampered investment in the 90's through increased taxation and also left the military a mess for Bush to have to fix. <span id='postcolor'>

gov't hampers investment and decade-long boom comes? nope. it's the other way. gov't hampers investment and slow down comes.

PitViper, all your logics are related to one point. Military spending. sorry, but military spending is not a holy factor in capitalism. Yes, public schools in LA. But funny cause all my professors were in Chicago-school.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Reagan Expansion between 1983-89 the economy grew by 3.2% compared to 2.4% for Clinton. And Reagan's expansion included a recession too. Unemployment and inflation also fell. The good economy helped the computer industry really grow too. <span id='postcolor'>

Read the facts(http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/netpub.pdf page 4). During Clinton's term RGDP grew at more conssitant rate then that of Reagan's era. btw 2 and 5 percent, while Reagan's era ended up with swings of anywhere from 9 percent to -1 percent.

Unemployemnt fell to lowest point during Clintons era, not reagan. If you read any news, we saw that damn "unemplument rate lowest in 20 yrs" showing up sp frequently.

the boom of computers is more related to fallout from gov't spending. since gov't used to be the main source of emplyemnt for CS guys, cut in Clintons term forced those engineers to find another way out, and that was PC market. that is why PC market grew along with several other factors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Clinton growth was merely a continuation of the Reagan growth. The Republicans made Clinton agree to a balanced budget and welfare reform. Another thing that helped with the Clinton growth was the fact that Clinton could cut defense spending. In fact, the only reason why Clinton could reduce the defense budget is because Reagan was able to defeat the Soviet Union.<span id='postcolor'>

See the chart I presented above. Reagan did not contribute much to growth eventually, and Bush finally got caught up with Reagan's legacy of debt-ridden spending. Did Reagan "beat" USSR? Nope. could have contributed to fall of it, but not the main reason. USSR's economy was so fucked up that they had to use CIA's assessment to assess their own econmoy. it was doomed to fail by its own idiocy.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 18 2002,01<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Delta Forces miserable failure AFAIK was due to incompetency in upper levels. they couldn't even get simple coordination(ok not that simple ) and it was just horrible as it was executed. Maybe you are getting something wrong here.<span id='postcolor'>

oh please.  The 70's military was the infamous "hollow military" of legend.  The DF debacle was a direct reflection of this. Are you going to try to tell me otherwise?  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Congress approves budget that executive branch executes. If your saying is correct, than if anything, Reagan would have hard time inceasing budget.<span id='postcolor'>

no, because Democrats are spendthrifts and realize they could further their own social spending with Reagan adament about his campaign promises.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">his tax cut tuned out to be a total fiasco, resulting in lack of gov't revenue, which was substituted with the increase in gov't spending, mostly through issuing T-bills. And this abundance of T-Bills is what got investment going on.<span id='postcolor'>

wrong again. His tax cut actually increased government tax revenues.  This is an economic fact.  go look it up. Of course, we accumulated a ton of debt too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Read my lips" was what Bush Sr said, but he didn't keep his promise of no increase in overall taxes. During Bush's term, it was him that inceased in various taxes in attempt to close the national debt gap.  And that called for recession to hop in. And your claim is that Clinton is the eventual provider of less investment, but how could you explain the investment increase in IT related fields?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe Clinton's tax increase on the middle class was quite a bit larger than Bush 1's.  the boost in free capital in the 80's was when most of the early technology companies took root.  You don't grow successful long term companies overnight. The fact is,  these companies were already hitting overdrive when Clinton took office.  His cumulative economic actions were like subtling tapping the brakes, NOT tapping the gas.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because you guys were hurt doens't mean that the whole nation got hurt. there are more than military in a nation, that is as significant as it.<span id='postcolor'>

The military is the favorite target for Dem's who want to cut some spending so as to increase entitlement spending elsewhere.  unfortunately,  these cuts degrade the conditions of the military and hurt the soldiers themselves. This leaves repubs constantly "fixing" the military after the dems wreck it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and cuts in gov't spending was attempt of increasing bureacracy.(yeah right)<span id='postcolor'>

evidently you don't understood my point.  for example: if you cut 20 billion from the military and increase the federal government by 6 billion, you get a 14 billion "decrease in government spending".  upon close inspection, of course, you have actually increased the federal bureaucracy.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gov't hampers investment and decade-long boom comes? nope. it's the other way. gov't hampers investment and slow down comes.<span id='postcolor'>

I guess in your economic world, everything takes effect immediately.  I already pointed out that the seeds were planted in the 80's and that tax increases eventually effected these industries after 6 or 7 years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PitViper, all your logics are related to one point. Military spending. sorry, but military spending is not a holy factor in capitalism.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but it the common target for Democrats when they want to slice off the budget for short term gain (at long term expense).  If you want an illustration,  look at which administrations are in control during the past half century when our military has "hollowed" several times. Look at which administrations have had to "fix" the hollowed militaries.

finally, can you specifically point out what economic policies Bush implemented in the first 4 months which caused the recession to finally take hold at month 4 in his presidency? Don't you think thats a bit quick for any economic policy actions to make any effect??

[Longinius 1]

"What Experience is that? Killing each other over the past thousand years? I have to go with 11B here. Screw everyone else. We feed them and give them clothes and they come and shoot our soldiers on PEACEKEEPING & HUMANITARIAN MISSIONS (US Marines in Somalia in 1992?). "

Well, like I stated in another post, atleast we have been around for 1000 years. We have companies that are older than the US (and one of them couldnt even get credit at an American bank because they didn't know if the company was stable enough )

As for Somalia. What did you expect? If soldiers go in with weapons draw, choppers flying all over the place and kidnapp people then their friends will object.

"Same thing with Europe. We help you guys rebuild after massive *DEVASTATION*. UK's Economy was in tatters and France was in Terrible Shape. We helped rebuild Germany, France. (And the UK's Economy!. Now what do we get from you Euros? Nothing. We get kicked off the human rights council. That complete bullshit. Too bad we can't go Isolationist again."

So? If you get beaten up and I pay your hospital bills, then constantly screw you over with regular interval, wouldn't you grow tired of me?

"Thats Garbage, Europe isn't our "parents". If they are, we need to call the Child Abuse Center because of all the shit we get from them."

Where do the founding ancestors of America come from then? The moon?

"As for the EU-nics they have no authority to tell the US what to do."

Just as much right as America has in telling others what to do. And America does it all the time.

"It's the US that is a parent to the rest of the world. We send troops, aid, etc. all over the freaking place. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc."

Vietnam and Iraq had nothing to do with world interest. They were strictly American interests. One had to do with politics, the other had to do with oil.

"The US, like a good parent, bailed them out and then helped rebuild the continent."

America didn't have a choice. If Hitler would have won, the US would have had to deal with him sooner or later. They choice was to attack either an allready engaged enemy with the help of the allies or later take on a battlehardened enemy who controlled an entire continent. And take him on, alone.

"When you guys say that europe needs to parent the US and give guidance, what the hell are you talking about? Guide us in what?"

Aparantly you would do well in attending History 101 and Morals and Ethics 101

"yeah, right...EU is so mature that they decided to have 2 wars, and first one was so great that it was dubbed 'the war to end all wars'., only to prove themselves wrong. i'd say that EU is clining to the glorious past of colonial exploitation."

EU didnt exist during the World Wars...

"Europe = giant leech on the U.S defense budget for the last half century. That pretty much sums it up funny how they complain about our defense spending also"

I hope you are aware that without that leech funding would be cut, since it wasnt needed, and you'd have less money for the military anyway. Thats how politicians work and that is why a military force who isnt constantly engaged in conflict will suffer cutbacks.

"Let countries fight wars for themselves, i.e. ww1 and Samalia. We have helped Europe through so much but they do not apperciate it, they wan't even support an attack on Iraq!"

Maybe because there is no real just cause to attack Iraq? And what do you think America would be without Europe and European consumers? Not much, I can tell you that. Your nation has been built by mostly Europeans.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh please. what a pile. The 70's military was the infamous "hollow military" of legend. Are you going to try to tell me otherwise? <span id='postcolor'>

I said incompetency in upper levels. The 70s US military had problem because they lost Vietnam. when you do not win, your morale suffers. and after spending money on the war, budget depeletion is natural following.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no, because Democrats are spendthrifts.<span id='postcolor'>

and that's how Reagan was able to spend money! and eventually increase national debt!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wrong again. His tax cut actually increased government tax revenues. This is an economic fact. go look it up.<span id='postcolor'>

nope. his idea was based on idea from some professor i can't name(it's been a while). The theory claimed that after certain point, tax end to dive economic activity and growth down. no one questions that. however, during Reagan's era, Reagan was pro-tax cut. he even mentioned his time as an actor, when he had to make movies and spend rest of the time doing nothing cause marginal increase in producing movies was less than marginal benefit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe Clinton's tax increase on the middle class was quite a bit larger than Bush 1's. the boost in free capital in the 80's was when most of the early technology companies took root. You don't grow successful long term companies overnight.<span id='postcolor'>

and that increase was to actually stop economy from going nuts. both Greenspan and Clinton were surprised by growth of economy and had to slow it down to prevent inflation. furthermore, increase in incomes outpaced tax increase.

the successful companies grow becuase they are flexible. the big dinosaurs of coldwar era couldn't handle fast paced world of 90s and they had to raise the white flag. while small companies such as Cisco managed to grow up. ofcourse, as law of diminishing returns dictates, those new flexibla companies will grow big sooner or later. and size is not the best criteria for measuring success.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The military is the favorite target for Dem's who want to cut some spending so as to increase entitlement spending elsewhere. unfortunately, these cuts degrade the conditions of the military and hurt the soldiers themselves. This leaves repubs constantly "fixing" the military after the dems wreck it.<span id='postcolor'>

my point again. YOU worried about YOUR share. not the total size of the pie

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">evidently you don't understood my point. for example: if you cut 20 billion from the military and increase the federal government by 6 billion, you get a 14 billion "decrease in government spending". upon close inspection, of course, you have actually increased the federal bureaucracy.

<span id='postcolor'>

good point. but is that bureacracy always unneccesary thing? not really. some are needed and just like billytran said, you don't have enough, there will be crooks everywhere. so increase in bureacracy to certain level is not alwasy bad. and military is bureacracy too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess in your economic world, everything takes effect immediately. I already pointed out that the seeds were planted in the 80's and that tax increases eventually effected these industries after 6 or 7 years.<span id='postcolor'>

nope, economist always look for LONG terms. and yes tax affects sometime later. but considering that even using 6-7 yrs as your argument, from the graph I provided to billytran from FedReserve, growth in Clinton era was way far to benefit from Reagan era.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but it the common target for Democrats when they want to slice off the budget for short term gain (at long term expense). If you want an illustration, look at which administrations are in control during the past half century when our military has "hollowed" several times. Look at which administrations have had to "fix" the hollowed militaries.<span id='postcolor'>

my point again. you want your slice bigger, not the whole pie's size.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Longinius, when I use EU, i mean Europe. abbreviation..

"Vietnam and Iraq had nothing to do with world interest. They were strictly American interests. One had to do with politics, the other had to do with oil."

ok..so let's not save Kuwait. give it back to Iraq?

"America didn't have a choice. If Hitler would have won, the US would have had to deal with him sooner or later. They choice was to attack either an allready engaged enemy with the help of the allies or later take on a battlehardened enemy who controlled an entire continent. And take him on, alone."

pretty much shows how europeans are incompetent of policing themselves. so incompetent that they let evil prevail and have other continents get sucked into it.

"Maybe because there is no real just cause to attack Iraq? And what do you think America would be without Europe and European consumers? Not much, I can tell you that. Your nation has been built by mostly Europeans."

and now Europe can only whine about US cause its bigger and has more effect on world politics. shows who got the better part

[Longinius 1]

"Longinius, when I use EU, i mean Europe. abbreviation.."

Ok, I see. It can get confusing though, since EU is, well, EU.

"ok..so let's not save Kuwait.  give it back to Iraq?"

Well, the land was pretty much invaded as a direct result of America telling Saddam they didnt care what he did. So he invaded. I don't think America had any right to get involved. The only reason they did was oilprices, strictly egoistical reasons.

"pretty much shows how europeans are incompetent of policing themselves. so incompetent that they let evil prevail and have other continents get sucked into it."

Yeah, that is what we get for not being one big set of united states I guess.

"and now Europe can only whine about US cause its bigger and has more effect on world politics. shows who got the better part"

And do you know HOW America got into their position of influence? Through helping rebuild Europe after the war, for one. And through fighting communism. The same things you guys usually keep complaining about.

[ralphwiggum 6]

"And do you know HOW America got into their position of influence? Through helping rebuild Europe after the war, for one. And through fighting communism. The same things you guys usually keep complaining about. "

to help rebuilding, one needs resource, europe made mistake of wasting it on war. so it's hard to say that europe has mature attitude anyway.(this was my point...damn i hate writing)

"Well, the land was pretty much invaded as a direct result of America telling Saddam they didnt care what he did. So he invaded. I don't think America had any right to get involved. The only reason they did was oilprices, strictly egoistical reasons."

and Kuwait ppl were masochits?

"Yeah, that is what we get for not being one big set of united states I guess."

Eh, EU is closest thing. hopefully EU can stop another WW if it ever starts in europe.(chance of that would be me actually developing another OFP )

[Longinius 1]

"to help rebuilding, one needs resource, europe made mistake of wasting it on war. so it's hard to say that europe has mature attitude anyway.(this was my point...damn i hate writing)"

So, instead of wasting resources on war Europe should have just let Hitler take over?

"and Kuwait ppl were masochits?"

What does that have to do with anything?

"Eh, EU is closest thing."

Yes, but not all European nations are members of EU.

"hopefully EU can stop another WW if it ever starts in europe.(chance of that would be me actually developing another OFP )"

And the chances of the next WW starting in Europe is about as big.