Comment Withdrawn
Printable View
Comment Withdrawn
European governments raise enough taxes to match spending. Since Reagan (apart from Clinton) US governments have slashed taxes for the wealthiest <1%, creating stratospheric deficits and exponential growth of the national debt. The true measure of US fiscal nutjobbery can be seen in the tax policies and results under the current administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Let's not get on the whole deal about taxes again...supply side economics works. Spending SHOULD be cut and that's obvious but taxes don't need to go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Our debt is our leverage with China...we're like a high roller in Vegas and they are the House they COULD break our legs but that won't get them their money any faster if at all AND if we welch on our debt the WORLD economy goes down the shitter....so the way I see it America holds the cards debt or no debt
Did you ever ask yourself....why would a country with a deficit (especially as big as the US deficit) benefit from a weak dollar?
The thing is a dollar is a dollar it doesn't matter how much it is actually worth if you owe someone a dollar and the dollar is worth 1/2 of the Euro or worth 1/80th of the Euro you still owe them only $1.
Devaluation of money is how Germany paid it's WWI debts....the US could, I am not saying it will but it COULD pay off a ton of debt very cheaply right now.
There is no evidence that supply side economics works. Not a single member of Bush's council of economic advisors would endorse his tax cuts as no credible economist believes supply side economics is anything but snake oil. BTW, Bush's council of economic advisors is currently down to one economic advisor, the rest having resigned and nobody credible willing to take their places. Tells you all you need to know about supply side policies right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleLet's not get on the whole deal about taxes again...supply side economics works. Spending SHOULD be cut and that's obvious but taxes don't need to go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Our debt is our leverage with China...we're like a high roller in Vegas and they are the House they COULD break our legs but that won't get them their money any faster if at all AND if we welch on our debt the WORLD economy goes down the shitter....so the way I see it America holds the cards debt or no debt
Did you ever ask yourself....why would a country with a deficit (especially as big as the US deficit) benefit from a weak dollar?
The thing is a dollar is a dollar it doesn't matter how much it is actually worth if you owe someone a dollar and the dollar is worth 1/2 of the Euro or worth 1/80th of the Euro you still owe them only $1.
Devaluation of money is how Germany paid it's WWI debts....the US could, I am not saying it will but it COULD pay off a ton of debt very cheaply right now.
The US can't get out of its debt by inflating the dollar because it needs to sell a trillion dollars of new treasuries every year to finance its ongoing deficits. If the Fed devalues the dollar then foreign creditors will ask for higher and higher rates of interest to cover the capital losses of a depreciating dollar and if they don't get them they'll invest in the Euro leaving America screwed or having to deal with double digit interest rates. You'd also have to deal with huge increases in import prices, making a trip to Wal Mart cost like a trip to Nordstrom. Either way the economy gets fucked.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree because I'll debate you all friggin day about supply side economics. Ireland cut taxes and bam instant economic upturn, they might not have done enough to continue that trend but they were at one point on the right track.
China and everyone else with any portion of America's debt can't call us on it because as I said before the WORLD ECONOMY hangs in the balance
You can't debate me all day about economics. Once you hit the edge of your ignorance on the subject, which doesn't take long, you run away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
An emerging economy like Ireland cutting taxes has no bearing whatsoever on how tax cuts affect a $13 trillion mature/advanced economy like America's. Ireland got new investment that would otherwise have gone to other EU countries but the overall economic growth in the EU was unchanged, so no magical growth achieved.
Nobody is going to call the US on existing debt, they're just not going to buy any more of it, leaving the US facing double digit interest rates/inflation, huge increases in import prices, economic stagnation, stratospheric tax increases, etc.etc.
Our debt runs their economies...and America won't be down for long there is no doubt it's an election year and of course everyone gets all crazy it'll settle down once someone gets in office and the relaxation begins and people start saying "Hey we're going to be ok" and the market responds.....or we could have another Jimmy Carter....but the economy won't stay bad forever infact NOW is the time to start pouring everything you have into the market....well maybe in a couple months but still it's BUYING time
Our debt doesn't run their economies. The problems in the economy have nothing to do with election years. I'm not so sure about your financial advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Fine....let me sink my government check into the stock market and you can just sit and worry.
Let me know how that worrying goes for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I'm not the one that needs to worry.
Well how did things work out after Hoover??? America was still America.
How did things work out after Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon in Vietnam and all the crap they put the country through??? America was still America.
How did things work out after Carter fucked everything up??? America was still America.
How did things work out after Black Monday??? America survived
My point is America is going to be just fine no matter who gets elected and no matter what they do. Sure higher taxes at this point will definently increase unemployment but that certainly doesn't affect my position with my company at this juncture. Sure pulling out of Iraq now would cause further instability in the future and place us more at odds with Iran because obviously if Iraq is unstable then it's neighbor will no doubt want to fix any issues the country has and in doing so create a state run by Iran which would no doubt oppose America even more than most in the area, but war between the US and Iran would always remain a last resort.
America will be fine, I would just rather unemployment stay low and us not be pushed into a bigger war by further fucking up the one we're already in. Is that ok? Am I wrong in thinking that way? ....of course you will think so, if only to continue this arguement
Lyle, you can't half go off at a tangent. Economics, Iraq, US foreign policy and geostrategy then back to economics. :) I've got bugger all to do till 6 am now so I'll play. :) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Higher taxes doesn't guarantee increased unemployment and can easily reduce employment. The tax rebate you just got from the government is actually them abandoning supply-side policies and going back to Keynesianism, the school of economic theory that agrees with my first sentence.
Iran already run Iraq. The US army is currently fighting and dying to keep two Iranian-backed groups in power, Dawa, which Maliki comes from and something called ISCI. The new democratic leader of Iraq Maliki comes from Dawa, a democratic group with decades of experience in car bombing, aeroplane hijacking and blowing up US embassies. The other group used to be called SCIRI, short for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Let's look at that name again.
The Supreme Council
For the Islamic Revolution
In Iraq.
Set up by the Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran, these guys fought for Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. These guys were trained and some were members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That's the guys Bush says are terrorists. There are estimates that there are 30 000 plus of these guys in the Iraqi security forces, still claiming pensions from the Iranian military.
Here are a couple of links just to check this :
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.
Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.
U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber - CNN.com
Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of
numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side
of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the
Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is
"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be
perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by
military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the
direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General
[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition
forces," he said.
Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government
responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found
in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."
Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq
These are the guys on our side, in our quest for democracy in Iraq and an ally who will help us defeat Iran.
The guy we don't like, Moqtada Al-Sadr, the most popular man among the Shiites of Iraq, the people we
supposedly invaded to liberate, is our big problem in Iraq because he wants us out. I really like that guy. He's on my screensaver. :)
It's this photograph.
http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/SadrAbdullah.jpg
He's got star quality. :)
Bonus points for naming the guy in the black and gold. A huge 5 rep increase for the first person to name him.
King Abdulla bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia...our supposed friend.
And dude seriously who in the middle east hasn't car bombed someone....honestly we're dealing with a totally different culture which is just a tad more onry than our own and the wrong people had the right ideas about that region. Rumsfeld didn't think big enough or long enough about this war....but we broke it we own it
And since no pansies over here want us to have our OWN oil which we COULD produce providing people allow drilling and refining then we wouldn't have to deal with such people. But things being as they are we have to play the hand we're delt and honestly it's no thanks to fucking England that we are where we are right now.....so don't blame us, blame you guys, you and fucking France always start some shit and wait for us to fix it
There are lots of Iraqi political groups that haven't car-bombed somebody. Almost all of them in fact. But the ones with the militias are the former Iranian terrorist groups so Bush now has to pal up with terrorists to get what he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
What are the right ideas about that region ?
The US hit peak oil production in 1970. There isn't a single conventional oil deposit in America that could be tapped fast enough to cover growth in US oil demand between now and when you got the deposit online, including ANWR etc. Meanwhile up to two thirds of the world's oil lies under five countries in the Middle East, the second-most oil deposits being under Iraq.
France wisely told you not to invade Iraq, it's not their fault you're there. George Bush's cabin boy Tony Blair has a lot to answer for, but epic dumbass George W Bush made it public at the time he'd go it alone if he had to.
Define "start", "fix".
Well #1 The UK and France colonized the majority of the Middle East #2 The UK created the state of Israel #3 The UK tried numerous times to get the US involved in Iran and eventually drew us into the whole Sha of Iran Civil War bullcrap.
....where's that rep buddy?
Way to go England...bunch of jackasses trying to look cool by making us do all the dirty work while you sit back and tsk tsk us and drink your tea...bastards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
1. The UK made a magnificent job of it, the French playing the part currently played by the UK. America fucked it up.
2. The UN created the state of Israel.
3. The US didn't need any help to get involved in Iran and overthrow the Shah.
You got he rep and you have the jackass part covered quite magnificantly yourselves. :)
like a true brit, deny any responsibility for what has gone on in the middle east....you're being taken over anyway slowly but surely you cease being England and now you're England-istan.
Have fun with all that, I hear Sharia law is some tough shit
Britain definitely set things up roughly the way they are today in the region but did a fantastic job of it. We had the whole region including Iran under control. The US has screwed it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Britain is 2% Muslim. It'll be some decades before those guys crack 10% of the population, and they assimilate eventually too, so nothing to worry about.
OK fine, that's cool for you to believe.
England cut a deal with Iran where England would get the oil out of the ground and then England would give Iran some of the profit and England was going to build schools and hospitals there and you never did. And then Iran nationalized the oil fields and you came grovelling to America trying to get Harry Truman to help yall out and he refused.
Then Ike Eisenhower got elected and you changed your story to "Iran is going to go Communist if America doesn't get invovled" and then THAT got America involved and that got the Sha in power.
Yes things were going how "swimmingly" (as you Brits would say) :beat: before America got involved and America tried it's hardest to not get involved but like FRANCE you just got too big for your britches and drew us into this debacle....you fucked up son....you fucked up BIG TIME
You do know about all that don't you??? ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSs1B0eMsnk
As for your 2% population...your government continues to both appease AND infuriate that population.
Fantastic job my ass! England screwed up everything...way to go England.....way to fucking go.
The Brits discovered oil in Iran and the Anglo-Iranian oil company, really the Anglo-Anglo oil company and now BP, used to produce the oil and pay Iran a small percentage. Iran nationalised their oil fields and it wasn't till Eisenhower decided to intervene that the Shah was installed. But that was a US operation. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit, was the CIA agent in charge of doing it. He wrote a book about it, which you can still buy. The Brits had almost no input in doing it, nor in screwing up Iran between 1953 and 1979 and the revolution there. Propping up the Shah all those years was a US policy and the US is entirely responsible for the disaster that ensued. Now epic dumbass George W Bush has compounded the problem by handing over to America's mortal enemies the world's second-largest oil reserve in Iraq, something described by an Iranian Ayatollah as a "dream come true."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Are you seriously trying to claim some sort of victory in our argument? I've been beating you like a gong since we started arguing in this forum and will continue to do so as long as we do. A couple of posts ago you were reduced to claiming that you were fine with the US putting a bunch of terrorists who blew up a US embassy in charge in Iraq.
It isn't Britain that has to worry about being taken over by immigrants :Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/...df5fc24e2d.jpg
All the Shah's Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You got us into it...England fucked up and England left it to the US to fix. You tried to draw us in earlier but Truman didn't buy into your bullshit and Ike did ONLY because Iran was going to seek aid from the USSR because England blockaded Iran and left their economy hurting BECAUSE BP is a bunch of tight asses and they were looking to screw over the Iranians from the get go. How is that NOT your fault? How can you not see how you specifically drew the United States into this mess and NOW you're bitching about it which is absolutely ridiculous.
Mexicans don't suicide bomb us brother and they are mainly Catholics and their culture is closer to the Western culture than the radical islamic people you guys grow in your country.
You've been beaten AGAIN, give up
Are you seriously trying to argue that Britain controls American foreign policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleAll the Shah's Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You got us into it...England fucked up and England left it to the US to fix. You tried to draw us in earlier but Truman didn't buy into your bullshit and Ike did ONLY because Iran was going to seek aid from the USSR because England blockaded Iran and left their economy hurting BECAUSE BP is a bunch of tight asses and they were looking to screw over the Iranians from the get go. How is that NOT your fault? How can you not see how you specifically drew the United States into this mess and NOW you're bitching about it which is absolutely ridiculous.
Mexicans don't suicide bomb us brother and they are mainly Catholics and their culture is closer to the Western culture than the radical islamic people you guys grow in your country.
You've been beaten AGAIN, give up
I'm sure you'll get on famously in the Estados Unidos.
No England doesn't CONTROL but you do AFFECT US foreign policy by doing stupid crap like blockading Iran and forcing them to seek the help of another nation (one not allied with England) to fix the problem (so the obvious solution to Iran was the USSR and no one could afford THEM having the oil then). Do you see the connection or are you THAT slow?
During the Cold War the US and England well hell, ever since the end of the War of 1812 the US and England have basically been tied at the hip....so whatever YOU get into, WWI, WWII, etc WE have to help out and then you go and BITCH about how we drug you into Iraq...BIG FUCKING DEAL you deserve some of this after all England has done in the past.
As for the Mexicans, they are still the minority and we don't cater to them, they cater to us....which is why you don't see me painting houses or doing landscaping
How did Iran get Russia to "fix" their problem in a way that necessitated the US getting involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
They were GOING to get help from communists...this was the very begining of the Cold War you do realize this right?
What would happen had the USSR been given the frinedship to the biggest oil producers???? Well the US and UK would be SOL that's what would freaking happen!
And who caused this to be an issue????? ENGLAND admit your guilt!
Russia and Iran have a history dating back centuries. What could Russia have done to "fix" Iran's problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
MIDDLE OF THE COLD WAR!
Just the thought of the USSR controlling vast amounts of oil and cozying up to Iran would obviously drive the immaginations wild in a very VERY bad way.
England knew what was going to happen and they needed America to help them out and low and behold the "Oh my God they are turning commie!" drum that the Brits were beating got Ike to get involved. When you guys just wanted to keep your big money and keep screwing the Iranians which is what Harry Truman saw and he turned you down.
Face it, England caused all this trouble and America has kept on screwing it up once you passed the problem on to us
How would Russia control Iran's oil?
If you don't understand that Russia would get a huge deal (bargain price oil) by helping Iran while they were blockaded by the British then what can I say....you're a retard.
The USSR have been a net exporter of oil since before WW2. That means they produce more than they use and sell the rest. Iran historically didn't get on too well with Russia and would have made a deal with the Brits rather than deal with the Russians. Iran have to export their oil via the Persian gulf and would have had no alternative but to eventually negotiate. The US didn't wait and overthrew their democratically elected government, then went on an ovethrowing-governments spree in the rest of the world. So this was just one small part of an overarching picture of US imperialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
OK the idea of Iran being Communist and in cahoots with Russia would make America nervous and England sold that to the US and the US had to intervene.
You're still at fault
So you're back to claiming Britain dictates US foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
The reason the US intervened was that your new president wanted Iran and its oil to remain in the western sphere of influence and so overthrew the government. Nothing whatsoever to do with th Brits asking America to do it.
Did I say that England dictates American policies???? No I fucking didn't...you PURPOSELY gave us bad intelligence on Iran to serve yourselves and in doing so you drug us into Iran.
If things were going so well with Iran then why the fuck did they nationalize the oil fields????
Allow me to field that question, it's because you promised them schools and hospitals and money and you gave them NOTHING you shafted them on the schools and hospitals and you gave them very little money.
Nobody gave you "bad intelligence" and there isn't any historical evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. We didn't start using "bad intelligence" as a reason for interfering in oil-rich countries till this century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
And it's "dragged" not "drug", John boy.
Did or did not England ask The United States of America for assistance in Iran multiple times before both the CIA AND MI6 installed the Shah into power?
Here's a timeline of events:
#1 England makes oil deal with Iran (then Persia) 1901
#2 Winston Churchill partially nationalizes the Anglo-Persian Oil Company 1913
#3 Iran wished to either renegotiate a deal with the APOC or allow for more countries to make use of their oil fields (for a price of course)
#4 A deal was not made and the Depression hit and left Iran earning a meager 366,782 pounds from their oil fields while at the same time being charged 1,000,000 pounds in taxes to the British Government (you never learn about taxes do you?). A drop in profits also left the Iranians feeling like they were getting shafted and Iran demanded the cancellation of the D'Arcy consession 1931-1932
#5 England was forced to renegotiate after their hearing at The Hauge faired poorly. The Iranians still didn't take advantage of their opportunity to cash in.
#6 The AIOC (formerly the APOC) under the Attlee government took 85% of the Iranian oil profits which lead to the 1951 nationalization of the Iranian oil fields.
#7 A 50/50 split of the profits was suggested and rejected by both the British and Iranian governments and direct negotiations between the two nations ceased.
#8 England thought of attempting a coup but as The United States was in the midst of the Korean War, President Harry Truman sided against it and refused to help the British. That being the case England began a blockade and embargo of Iran trying to force them to side in England's favor which virtually cut off any sale of Iranian oil.
#9 When President Eisenhower was elected England came back to the United States and instead of saying "This is in England's economic and colonial intrests to have a coup in Iran" as they did years before, this time they used an approach which played upon America's dislike of Communism.
#10 August 19, 1953 the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown and the Ayatollah Koshani was placed into power.
I can't blame you for your confusion because I'll be damned if England knows fuck all about having ALLIES....but I guess you're finding out now aren't you ...."Oh did we DRAG you into a War?"......"Ooops, our bad" ;D
No confusion, John boy. Yes we wanted you to get involved but initially you didn't want to. A new president decided it was a good idea though and overthrew the government. But he then went on a government-overthrowing world tour so it's clear that this was a change in US policy, not something initiated by the Brits. When you can find a single scrap of actual evidence to back your silly claims up get back to me.
You're kidding me, we didn't say "Hey England, who was that you wanted us to overthrow again?" you came back to us selling a different story in order to secure our support in YOUR endevor.