So that makes it OK? How about, we prepare for and adjust to this, um, 'normalcy' so we don't have to have such a normal economy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a way yes. There's not much a person in government can do to change the spending habits of millions of people. . . . . Aside from perhaps cutting taxes in half and dismantling a lot of those useless branches of state and federal government.
But that's not going to happen. The other way is to throw on a bunch of restrictions and take away the "free" part of the market. In the end this is the worse decision of the two, since socialism doesn't tend to achieve the same average level of performance as does capitalism.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>*snip*
NYAH NYAH NYAH
Republicans are the greatest ever!!!!
Democrats are lousy swine!!!!!
NYAH NYAH NYAH
*snip*</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, Fellowship. You are part of the problem--not because you are a Republican that takes every opportunity to bash your Democratic counterparts. No, you are part of problem because you actually think there is a difference between the two parties.
Enough of this crap already. I'm tired of hearing this childish bullshit from both sides of the aisle.
Well this seems to support my idea about the types of jobs people are getting and consumer confidence. Remember that the looming war isn't helping people's confidence either.
<strong>Despite how much I wan to jump on Bush I want to say he can hardly be critisiced for the current situation. But he can be blamed for not doing the right thing for the future economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ander's this is it exactly.The reason this all happened is a little hazy in most respects but the lack of anything constructive being done about it and the things that have made it worse are really obvious.
This downturn started before Bush took office and was inevitable. But, what's been done and not done since has made it many times worse. The dot com excuse is wearing pretty thin.
<strong>It's pretty clear Fellowship has some serious mental deficiencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than name calling I would for just once like to see giant articulate what his view is. Name calling is really a petty childish tactic. It does not reflect a high level of wisdom or maturity. Jerry Springer? Yes
A real world with problems that need solving, No name calling is a waste.
giant for once articulate your views on the economy. How best to get it going etc.
Ander's this is it exactly.The reason this all happened is a little hazy in most respects but the lack of anything constructive being done about it and the things that have made it worse are really obvious.
This downturn started before Bush took office and was inevitable. But, what's been done and not done since has made it many times worse. The dot com excuse is wearing pretty thin.
What my good friend would you suggest government do? I have clearly heard you and others complain of what Bush has and has not done. What should the admin. do in your view? This is what I am in search of. The complaints are wearing pretty thin with me from democrats who complain however I never hear their solutions.
I respect your views while I may differ on the details. What more than anything that gets under my skin with the politics of today is the cheap low IQ tactics that the Republican party as a whole employs to win over political support. They have to have a platform that is different to be an alternative. The Republican always seem to re-invent what they believe. What ever will divide away a group of people that they can get to support their party. With economics one rarely views any detail in respect to realities of economic cycles. In light of what our country has gone through such as the collapse of the bubble stock market as well as 9/11 I think in light of the weak economy be it weak we have been fortunate on balance. I attribute this to our consuming nature as Americans combined with actions taken to stimulate the economy. All in all for bad times the valley could be far worse. If in America we saw 12% unemployment then we would have something of weight to discuss with fearful weight. I am optimistic about the pork of our economy or weeds if you will being rooted out. I have seen some retail sectors show some players pull out of my market here but in light of that I saw those players as poor competitors. It goes back to supply and demand in a reality of competition. If you do not supply what is in demand get out of the way because someone else will.
What can harm such a free market is lack of participation via tax paying on all parts of our populace.
[quote]What my good friend would you suggest government do? I have clearly heard you and others complain of what Bush has and has not done. What should the admin. do in your view? This is what I am in search of. The complaints are wearing pretty thin with me from democrats who complain however I never hear their solutions. <hr></blockquote>
How much is this war going to cost us again? Imagine putting *that* type of money back into the economy.
Edit: BTW, excellent point about ALF. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Rather than name calling I would for just once like to see giant articulate what his view is. Name calling is really a petty childish tactic. It does not reflect a high level of wisdom or maturity. Jerry Springer? Yes
A real world with problems that need solving, No name calling is a waste.
giant for once articulate your views on the economy. How best to get it going etc.
How much is this war going to cost us again? Imagine putting *that* type of money back into the economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran you and jimmac both bring up the cost of a war in iraq. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. Think about it. If disarming Iraq was left to a peaceful UN means do you really trust the job would get done? Would Saddam not sell some WOMD out the back door while the UN team is distracted in other parts of the country? I mean if Saddam has to get rid of them he might as well sell some of them while nobody sees it on the radar screen. Why not get some money from terrorists for the WOMD. If we do not go to war with Iraq I would be afraid for not just the economy but the world we will live in. So war is the only way to get the job done. If we were to not have this war sure we may save some money now. How then do we view that "saved money at this point in time" when ohh 3 years from now (fill in the blank) instead of a handfull of planes hit American targets it is a handful of American cities hit with WOMD of one sort or another. What do you think that will cost? This is where I take a different view of the whole process of what Bush is doing in terms of the war and the economy. The cost of not going to war is far far far greater than the cost of going to war. Sure we can count how much we could save now by not going. But one day if having not gone to war we could wake up to a world that is far more dangerous that is faced with a handful of american cities at crisis and countless american lives gone. At such a time we would be faced with a medical crisis, an economic crisis worth mention, we would also then be in a bind as to what would we do. How would we do it. If the country was hit hard and I don't live in a bubble ( it could happen ) We would be facing a far greater disaster in all areas. It would bring the entire world econonmy into a major tailspin and the entire world would be unstable like we have never seen in our lifetimes. To me going to war in iraq is a small price to pay in order to prevent this scenario I just presented. It is like hiring a termite pest control company to spray your house every year to prevent termites from destroying your home. That is far cheaper and smarter than to let termites destroy the home and then rebuild the home.
[quote] I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. So war is the only way to get the job done.<hr></blockquote>
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Now here is mine. I believe that there are other issues that will arise from attacking Iraq.
Those points aside, I think that the UN is doing a good job. I know that the President does not think so but I think weapons inspectors need more time to get the job done and I think if the US wasn't really pushing for this war, other countries might be harsher on Iraq. Right now they can't be that harsh since they don't want to have to go to war. They know that they have more pressing matters that need their time and attention. Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to see things that way.
So when you ask what I would do, I would be putting more attention on our people at home then fighting a war in the Middle East. At a time where there are so many problems right here, I would put my people first. The UN can and should be dealing with Iraq. After all, it's not just our problem, it's the world's. If weapons inspections weren't working you wouldn't see mass demonstrations against war and you wouldn't see countries supporting the inspections.
At least in a UN backed war, we wouldn't be going in alone and the cost of war would not be so much. Then we could use that money to boost the economy. But in this situation, it's lose-lose for us.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
giant for once articulate your views on the economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, considering I only majored at Northwestern in finance for 2 years (after switching it from more general business, and I switch again after finance), I'm able to realize that I don't know enough to say what would or would not be good. Sure you can have your BS opinion about it, but anyone that has actually studied economics for any amount of time realizes why you should only really listen to people that have done extensive graduate work and lived long enough to see a couple cycles. I certainly haven't studied economics enough to comment. Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development, I doubt you are in a adequate position either.
You wouldn't claim to know how to perform a Laparo Cholecystecomy, yet you claim you know about how the economy should be run?!?! As if it requires less education, experience and expertise?!?! You really have problems.
Not to mention that you posted this garbage on the same day every front page carried an article negating any importance your inane post. Seriously, are you insane?
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Now here is mine. I believe that there are other issues that will arise from attacking Iraq.
Those points aside, I think that the UN is doing a good job. I know that the President does not think so but I think weapons inspectors need more time to get the job done and I think if the US wasn't really pushing for this war, other countries might be harsher on Iraq. Right now they can't be that harsh since they don't want to have to go to war. They know that they have more pressing matters that need their time and attention. Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to see things that way.
So when you ask what I would do, I would be putting more attention on our people at home then fighting a war in the Middle East. At a time where there are so many problems right here, I would put my people first. The UN can and should be dealing with Iraq. After all, it's not just our problem, it's the world's. If weapons inspections weren't working you wouldn't see mass demonstrations against war and you wouldn't see countries supporting the inspections.
At least in a UN backed war, we wouldn't be going in alone and the cost of war would not be so much. Then we could use that money to boost the economy. But in this situation, it's lose-lose for us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran thank you for articulating your view. I really am thankful for people that articulate what they view. I have to say I respect your view but I still differ with you so you could say we respectfully disagree but I still admire you as a person and nothing else is tied to the difference over this issue. In your closing statment you say it is a lose-lose for us. You also mentioned the luxury that if others helped us to fight a multi-lateral war it would save us money. To this I reply by simply saying that it is a lose-lose for us if we do nothing. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. We don't have another 12 years for this. If the UN does not help us in war it will not be unilateral in form. We will still have other countries support us and help in this war. Again it is not the cost of the war that is important. It is the security and stability of the world that is key. Doing nothing opens the door for really really bad days ahead. That is what we truly can not afford.
In a way yes. There's not much a person in government can do to change the spending habits of millions of people. . . . . Aside from perhaps cutting taxes in half and dismantling a lot of those useless branches of state and federal government.
But that's not going to happen. The other way is to throw on a bunch of restrictions and take away the "free" part of the market. In the end this is the worse decision of the two, since socialism doesn't tend to achieve the same average level of performance as does capitalism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Much of the problem today can be traced back to the issue of accountability. The problem in the capital markets is NOT due to issues of "consumer confidence". It is due to problems of accountability.
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
No one believes in the numbers (good or bad) companies are putting forth. The tech bubble of the 90?s and all the bankruptcies that followed are a direct result of this lack of accountability. Misguided Liberal type regulations have, and will, only make things worse.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Fran you and jimmac both bring up the cost of a war in iraq. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. Think about it. If disarming Iraq was left to a peaceful UN means do you really trust the job would get done? Would Saddam not sell some WOMD out the back door while the UN team is distracted in other parts of the country? I mean if Saddam has to get rid of them he might as well sell some of them while nobody sees it on the radar screen. Why not get some money from terrorists for the WOMD. If we do not go to war with Iraq I would be afraid for not just the economy but the world we will live in. So war is the only way to get the job done. If we were to not have this war sure we may save some money now. How then do we view that "saved money at this point in time" when ohh 3 years from now (fill in the blank) instead of a handfull of planes hit American targets it is a handful of American cities hit with WOMD of one sort or another. What do you think that will cost? This is where I take a different view of the whole process of what Bush is doing in terms of the war and the economy. The cost of not going to war is far far far greater than the cost of going to war. Sure we can count how much we could save now by not going. Fellowship
Hell, if he's going to sell them . . . why don't we just buy them?
[quote] But one day if [we go] to war we could wake up to a world that is far more dangerous that is faced with a handful of american cities at crisis and countless american lives gone. At such a time we would be faced with a medical crisis, an economic crisis worth mention, we would also then be in a bind as to what would we do. How would we do it. If the country was hit hard and I don't live in a bubble ( it could happen ) We would be facing a far greater disaster in all areas. It would bring the entire world econonmy into a major tailspin and the entire world would be unstable like we have never seen in our lifetimes. To me going to war in iraq is a small price to pay in order to prevent this scenario I just presented. It is like hiring a termite pest control company to spray your house every year to prevent termites from destroying your home. That is far cheaper and smarter than to let termites destroy the home and then rebuild the home.
<hr></blockquote>Today there was an article about madrassas in Pakistan . . . these schools, which are prevelent in Pakistan and teh middle East . . . don't hesitate to teach their students that it is their duty to kill Americans
It is far from likely that the war will result in a "trickle down" of Democracy . . but rather will result in resentent of the US by Arabs . . . there are giagantic!!!! and I mean big! demonstrations al over the Arab world against this war . . . it is not racist to assume that of teh possible scenarios after and during a war, it is less likely that the Arab world is going to spontaneoulsly smile at America and start to vote Republican . . . but rather there are many other more likely scenarios that point to possible backlash . . . many more and more likely scenarios!!!!!
And this possible esccalation would more likely tailspin the economy, particularly because teh sources of WMD are not confined to Iraq . . . there are many such places where weapons can be got . . . the former Soviet Union for example . . . . a place (Tajikestan, Georgia, Ukrain etc) not well known for its tightly run bureacracy and curruption-free security . .
Now, with that . . . I am not saying 'yeah' or 'nay' just remarking on some things . . .
Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development You really have problems.
I am not insane but you are a bitter and hateful person so it has become crystal clear. I do not offend easily but what you say about my inheritance is very hurtful.
I do earn my way in life. I have a business that I started since the age of 21 and I make over $100,000 a year from it. So I do take risks and I earn my way.
giant it seems to me that ever since you knew I was a Christian you have taken it upon youself to give me tremendous grief. You are by no means the first of this sort. I truly ask you, why do you thrust so much hate towards me? Do you even know why you do it?
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators"
Comments
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
So that makes it OK? How about, we prepare for and adjust to this, um, 'normalcy' so we don't have to have such a normal economy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a way yes. There's not much a person in government can do to change the spending habits of millions of people. . . . . Aside from perhaps cutting taxes in half and dismantling a lot of those useless branches of state and federal government.
But that's not going to happen. The other way is to throw on a bunch of restrictions and take away the "free" part of the market. In the end this is the worse decision of the two, since socialism doesn't tend to achieve the same average level of performance as does capitalism.
<strong>*snip*
NYAH NYAH NYAH
Republicans are the greatest ever!!!!
Democrats are lousy swine!!!!!
NYAH NYAH NYAH
*snip*</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, Fellowship. You are part of the problem--not because you are a Republican that takes every opportunity to bash your Democratic counterparts. No, you are part of problem because you actually think there is a difference between the two parties.
Enough of this crap already. I'm tired of hearing this childish bullshit from both sides of the aisle.
<strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55329-2003Mar7.html"; target="_blank">*cough*</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Well this seems to support my idea about the types of jobs people are getting and consumer confidence. Remember that the looming war isn't helping people's confidence either.
<strong>Despite how much I wan to jump on Bush I want to say he can hardly be critisiced for the current situation. But he can be blamed for not doing the right thing for the future economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ander's this is it exactly.The reason this all happened is a little hazy in most respects but the lack of anything constructive being done about it and the things that have made it worse are really obvious.
This downturn started before Bush took office and was inevitable. But, what's been done and not done since has made it many times worse. The dot com excuse is wearing pretty thin.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>It's pretty clear Fellowship has some serious mental deficiencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than name calling I would for just once like to see giant articulate what his view is. Name calling is really a petty childish tactic. It does not reflect a high level of wisdom or maturity. Jerry Springer? Yes
A real world with problems that need solving, No name calling is a waste.
giant for once articulate your views on the economy. How best to get it going etc.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>
Ander's this is it exactly.The reason this all happened is a little hazy in most respects but the lack of anything constructive being done about it and the things that have made it worse are really obvious.
This downturn started before Bush took office and was inevitable. But, what's been done and not done since has made it many times worse. The dot com excuse is wearing pretty thin.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What my good friend would you suggest government do? I have clearly heard you and others complain of what Bush has and has not done. What should the admin. do in your view? This is what I am in search of. The complaints are wearing pretty thin with me from democrats who complain however I never hear their solutions.
Solution?
Thanks, Fellows
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
I respect your views while I may differ on the details. What more than anything that gets under my skin with the politics of today is the cheap low IQ tactics that the Republican party as a whole employs to win over political support. They have to have a platform that is different to be an alternative. The Republican always seem to re-invent what they believe. What ever will divide away a group of people that they can get to support their party. With economics one rarely views any detail in respect to realities of economic cycles. In light of what our country has gone through such as the collapse of the bubble stock market as well as 9/11 I think in light of the weak economy be it weak we have been fortunate on balance. I attribute this to our consuming nature as Americans combined with actions taken to stimulate the economy. All in all for bad times the valley could be far worse. If in America we saw 12% unemployment then we would have something of weight to discuss with fearful weight. I am optimistic about the pork of our economy or weeds if you will being rooted out. I have seen some retail sectors show some players pull out of my market here but in light of that I saw those players as poor competitors. It goes back to supply and demand in a reality of competition. If you do not supply what is in demand get out of the way because someone else will.
What can harm such a free market is lack of participation via tax paying on all parts of our populace.
Fello . . . .er . . . pfflam
How much is this war going to cost us again? Imagine putting *that* type of money back into the economy.
Edit: BTW, excellent point about ALF. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Well not by starting a war and putting all sorts of doubt in peoples minds. Just look at the gas prices.
Someone's getting rich.
Fellowship not that I take your posts terribly seriously but you really should wake up and smell the coffee.
<strong>
Rather than name calling I would for just once like to see giant articulate what his view is. Name calling is really a petty childish tactic. It does not reflect a high level of wisdom or maturity. Jerry Springer? Yes
A real world with problems that need solving, No name calling is a waste.
giant for once articulate your views on the economy. How best to get it going etc.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And let me guess...you don't think that your original post is at all petty or childish.
Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand.
Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying.
<strong>
How much is this war going to cost us again? Imagine putting *that* type of money back into the economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran you and jimmac both bring up the cost of a war in iraq. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. Think about it. If disarming Iraq was left to a peaceful UN means do you really trust the job would get done? Would Saddam not sell some WOMD out the back door while the UN team is distracted in other parts of the country? I mean if Saddam has to get rid of them he might as well sell some of them while nobody sees it on the radar screen. Why not get some money from terrorists for the WOMD. If we do not go to war with Iraq I would be afraid for not just the economy but the world we will live in. So war is the only way to get the job done. If we were to not have this war sure we may save some money now. How then do we view that "saved money at this point in time" when ohh 3 years from now (fill in the blank) instead of a handfull of planes hit American targets it is a handful of American cities hit with WOMD of one sort or another. What do you think that will cost? This is where I take a different view of the whole process of what Bush is doing in terms of the war and the economy. The cost of not going to war is far far far greater than the cost of going to war. Sure we can count how much we could save now by not going. But one day if having not gone to war we could wake up to a world that is far more dangerous that is faced with a handful of american cities at crisis and countless american lives gone. At such a time we would be faced with a medical crisis, an economic crisis worth mention, we would also then be in a bind as to what would we do. How would we do it. If the country was hit hard and I don't live in a bubble ( it could happen ) We would be facing a far greater disaster in all areas. It would bring the entire world econonmy into a major tailspin and the entire world would be unstable like we have never seen in our lifetimes. To me going to war in iraq is a small price to pay in order to prevent this scenario I just presented. It is like hiring a termite pest control company to spray your house every year to prevent termites from destroying your home. That is far cheaper and smarter than to let termites destroy the home and then rebuild the home.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Now here is mine. I believe that there are other issues that will arise from attacking Iraq.
Those points aside, I think that the UN is doing a good job. I know that the President does not think so but I think weapons inspectors need more time to get the job done and I think if the US wasn't really pushing for this war, other countries might be harsher on Iraq. Right now they can't be that harsh since they don't want to have to go to war. They know that they have more pressing matters that need their time and attention. Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to see things that way.
So when you ask what I would do, I would be putting more attention on our people at home then fighting a war in the Middle East. At a time where there are so many problems right here, I would put my people first. The UN can and should be dealing with Iraq. After all, it's not just our problem, it's the world's. If weapons inspections weren't working you wouldn't see mass demonstrations against war and you wouldn't see countries supporting the inspections.
At least in a UN backed war, we wouldn't be going in alone and the cost of war would not be so much. Then we could use that money to boost the economy. But in this situation, it's lose-lose for us.
<strong>
giant for once articulate your views on the economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, considering I only majored at Northwestern in finance for 2 years (after switching it from more general business, and I switch again after finance), I'm able to realize that I don't know enough to say what would or would not be good. Sure you can have your BS opinion about it, but anyone that has actually studied economics for any amount of time realizes why you should only really listen to people that have done extensive graduate work and lived long enough to see a couple cycles. I certainly haven't studied economics enough to comment. Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development, I doubt you are in a adequate position either.
You wouldn't claim to know how to perform a Laparo Cholecystecomy, yet you claim you know about how the economy should be run?!?! As if it requires less education, experience and expertise?!?! You really have problems.
Not to mention that you posted this garbage on the same day every front page carried an article negating any importance your inane post. Seriously, are you insane?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Now here is mine. I believe that there are other issues that will arise from attacking Iraq.
Those points aside, I think that the UN is doing a good job. I know that the President does not think so but I think weapons inspectors need more time to get the job done and I think if the US wasn't really pushing for this war, other countries might be harsher on Iraq. Right now they can't be that harsh since they don't want to have to go to war. They know that they have more pressing matters that need their time and attention. Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to see things that way.
So when you ask what I would do, I would be putting more attention on our people at home then fighting a war in the Middle East. At a time where there are so many problems right here, I would put my people first. The UN can and should be dealing with Iraq. After all, it's not just our problem, it's the world's. If weapons inspections weren't working you wouldn't see mass demonstrations against war and you wouldn't see countries supporting the inspections.
At least in a UN backed war, we wouldn't be going in alone and the cost of war would not be so much. Then we could use that money to boost the economy. But in this situation, it's lose-lose for us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran thank you for articulating your view. I really am thankful for people that articulate what they view. I have to say I respect your view but I still differ with you so you could say we respectfully disagree but I still admire you as a person and nothing else is tied to the difference over this issue. In your closing statment you say it is a lose-lose for us. You also mentioned the luxury that if others helped us to fight a multi-lateral war it would save us money. To this I reply by simply saying that it is a lose-lose for us if we do nothing. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. We don't have another 12 years for this. If the UN does not help us in war it will not be unilateral in form. We will still have other countries support us and help in this war. Again it is not the cost of the war that is important. It is the security and stability of the world that is key. Doing nothing opens the door for really really bad days ahead. That is what we truly can not afford.
With respect,
Fellowship
<strong>
In a way yes. There's not much a person in government can do to change the spending habits of millions of people. . . . . Aside from perhaps cutting taxes in half and dismantling a lot of those useless branches of state and federal government.
But that's not going to happen. The other way is to throw on a bunch of restrictions and take away the "free" part of the market. In the end this is the worse decision of the two, since socialism doesn't tend to achieve the same average level of performance as does capitalism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Much of the problem today can be traced back to the issue of accountability. The problem in the capital markets is NOT due to issues of "consumer confidence". It is due to problems of accountability.
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
No one believes in the numbers (good or bad) companies are putting forth. The tech bubble of the 90?s and all the bankruptcies that followed are a direct result of this lack of accountability. Misguided Liberal type regulations have, and will, only make things worse.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
Fran you and jimmac both bring up the cost of a war in iraq. I do not see the UN disarming Iraq. Think about it. If disarming Iraq was left to a peaceful UN means do you really trust the job would get done? Would Saddam not sell some WOMD out the back door while the UN team is distracted in other parts of the country? I mean if Saddam has to get rid of them he might as well sell some of them while nobody sees it on the radar screen. Why not get some money from terrorists for the WOMD. If we do not go to war with Iraq I would be afraid for not just the economy but the world we will live in. So war is the only way to get the job done. If we were to not have this war sure we may save some money now. How then do we view that "saved money at this point in time" when ohh 3 years from now (fill in the blank) instead of a handfull of planes hit American targets it is a handful of American cities hit with WOMD of one sort or another. What do you think that will cost? This is where I take a different view of the whole process of what Bush is doing in terms of the war and the economy. The cost of not going to war is far far far greater than the cost of going to war. Sure we can count how much we could save now by not going. Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hell, if he's going to sell them . . . why don't we just buy them?
[quote] But one day if [we go] to war we could wake up to a world that is far more dangerous that is faced with a handful of american cities at crisis and countless american lives gone. At such a time we would be faced with a medical crisis, an economic crisis worth mention, we would also then be in a bind as to what would we do. How would we do it. If the country was hit hard and I don't live in a bubble ( it could happen ) We would be facing a far greater disaster in all areas. It would bring the entire world econonmy into a major tailspin and the entire world would be unstable like we have never seen in our lifetimes. To me going to war in iraq is a small price to pay in order to prevent this scenario I just presented. It is like hiring a termite pest control company to spray your house every year to prevent termites from destroying your home. That is far cheaper and smarter than to let termites destroy the home and then rebuild the home.
<hr></blockquote>Today there was an article about madrassas in Pakistan . . . these schools, which are prevelent in Pakistan and teh middle East . . . don't hesitate to teach their students that it is their duty to kill Americans
It is far from likely that the war will result in a "trickle down" of Democracy . . but rather will result in resentent of the US by Arabs . . . there are giagantic!!!! and I mean big! demonstrations al over the Arab world against this war . . . it is not racist to assume that of teh possible scenarios after and during a war, it is less likely that the Arab world is going to spontaneoulsly smile at America and start to vote Republican . . . but rather there are many other more likely scenarios that point to possible backlash . . . many more and more likely scenarios!!!!!
And this possible esccalation would more likely tailspin the economy, particularly because teh sources of WMD are not confined to Iraq . . . there are many such places where weapons can be got . . . the former Soviet Union for example . . . . a place (Tajikestan, Georgia, Ukrain etc) not well known for its tightly run bureacracy and curruption-free security . .
Now, with that . . . I am not saying 'yeah' or 'nay' just remarking on some things . . .
<strong>
Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development You really have problems.
Seriously, are you insane?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not insane but you are a bitter and hateful person so it has become crystal clear. I do not offend easily but what you say about my inheritance is very hurtful.
I do earn my way in life. I have a business that I started since the age of 21 and I make over $100,000 a year from it. So I do take risks and I earn my way.
giant it seems to me that ever since you knew I was a Christian you have taken it upon youself to give me tremendous grief. You are by no means the first of this sort. I truly ask you, why do you thrust so much hate towards me? Do you even know why you do it?
Jesus loves you.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators"