Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

But I cannot because I read articles and hear reports from all over the political spectrum and top military spokesmen that things are not going well.

Lower quality reporting is always going to highlight what is going wrong. Looking at the numbers however, shows that, yes, there is progress in afghanistan

There are also more stories of progress out there.

Last edited by Steyr AUG (2009-10-10 8:36 pm)

resedit wrote:

My nephew, after spending two terms in Iraq, is going to Afghanistan soon.

Funny thing - he asked for the assignment.
Even funnier - he doesn't like Bush. He does however like his job.

As do many people. Despite the fact that it is a warzone, its an incredibly enjoyable job.

To be clear, his (my nephews) disagreement with Bush isn't over the invasion.
He's proud to have a chance to help give people in Iraq an opportunity to enjoy the same Democracy we all take for granted.
His problem with Bush is that he's a Democrat, and Bush is a Republican.

I figure it's a phase he'll grow out of.

daemon wrote:

You mean the 'democracy' part?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8125636.stm

no - the part where he aligns himself with a political party that thinks it knows what is best for everyone and therefore has the right to tax and spend to force what they "know is best" for everyone.

user wrote:

You just described both parties there.

No, The Democrats do believe in tax and spend. The Republicans, on the otherhand, prefer borrow and spend.

Pariah wrote:

user wrote:

You just described both parties there.

No, The Democrats do believe in tax and spend. The Republicans, on the otherhand, prefer borrow and spend.

So then why is debt skyrocketing at a higher rate now?

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

user wrote:

You just described both parties there.

No, The Democrats do believe in tax and spend. The Republicans, on the otherhand, prefer borrow and spend.

So then why is debt skyrocketing at a higher rate now?

One time deviation from a thirty year trend.

It's the basis of it though. The rest of his debt is coming from the bailout.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

National Debt? Because we borrowed to keep from going into a depression.

Taxes will have to increase to pay for things. You don't run a trillion dollar war on a shoestring budget.

The war isn't where Obama's debt is coming from.

For thirty years the Republicans have pursued a destructive ideology of over spending, under taxing and under regulating. Until they finally tanked the economy, not just ours, but the entire world econ.

You are blaming the world economy tanking on Republicans in America?

You give us far too much credit.

ScifiterX wrote:

Since the 80s, I've literally been saying that the policies started under Reaganomics were gonna fail and fail badly if they were maintained. It's not my fault those smurfs had to to go and prove me right.

Same here.
Plenty of posters here, including me, have been talking about what a house of cards the economy had become. For many years now.

Last edited by Pariah (2009-10-12 1:35 pm)

I'll admit it; I AM biased towards RESPONSIBLE politicians. I don't care which party they belong to though.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Running a deficit in the height of a economic boom is irresponsible.  This is what the Republicans did.

I  suggest you wouldn't have had a  boom were it not for deficit spending.

Ribtorus wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Running a deficit in the height of a economic boom is irresponsible.  This is what the Republicans did.

I  suggest you wouldn't have had a  boom were it not for deficit spending.

Too-cheap money thanks to Chairman Greenspan, the currency imbalance with China, financial firms over-leveraging by using derivative to get around Reg T:  perhaps the timing of the boom would have been different, but there would have been one.

And, of course, the 2003-2007 "boom" was one of inflated real estate, overcapacity in construction, and unsustainable boom in financials.