Tired of defending/explaining a conservative viewpoint...? Kerry does it for us..!!!
- Thread starter Good to Go
- Start date
John Kerry is an absolute f......ng disgrace to the United States and to all Vietnam Veterans. The guy is a fake beyond comprehension. That no good b a s t a r d claimed to have been awarded three purple hearts amongst a bunch of other fake awards and pawns himself off as some kind of war hero. It is an absolute crock of schit........Gawd, I can't stand that guy.
If there was a Doberman in office this would all go away and we would once again be the most powerful nation in the world. Problem is the Pelosi breed.....
Kerry has always been so preocupied with b*tching about the way that the leaders run the country, that; That is his cause.
If he were to jump on his own cause, and create an ajenda, He'd be dangerous. As it is, he's just a freaking critic.
The scary thing is that he casts his vote in our behalf...
If he were to jump on his own cause, and create an ajenda, He'd be dangerous. As it is, he's just a freaking critic.
The scary thing is that he casts his vote in our behalf...
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Inflation is already on the rise.
Don't worry, all you have to do is look to the land of liberal. California's answer to their budget shortfall?
RAISE TAXES.
That is what they will be doing in the next year. They will tell us we have to raise your taxes to pay for the spending bill they HAD to do because we screwed up.
Wait and see.
Oh, and as I said 8 months ago, the dow dropped below 7500 AFTER the profit anounced his housing plan.
I say we stimulate the economy by buying American made bullets, put them in American made guns, and have American firing squads line some American financial "wizards" of bundled housing securities up. Then get an American made bulldozer to finish the job.
There's 10,000 soon to be released prisoners, that need room at the state prison. We could use the same method to make a little room for the minor offenders.
Yha, I know, naked violence, or something like that.
There's 10,000 soon to be released prisoners, that need room at the state prison. We could use the same method to make a little room for the minor offenders.
Yha, I know, naked violence, or something like that.
M
MPS
Well-known member
...and you wonder why I think you are a socialist/communist!!!???? Go figure? You are in favor of forcing people to spend their money a certain way....fu(k me....do you say Hail Obama every night in your living room?
LMFAO
Last edited:
S
shortstop20
Well-known member
Please don't tell me you're still arguing that the government programs of the 1930's brought us out of the Great Depression. WWII is the one and only thing that brought us out of the Great Depression. If that's what you meant then
for you.
Last edited:
Please don't tell me you're still arguing that the government programs of the 1930's brought us out of the Great Depression. WWII is the one and only thing that brought us out of the Great Depression. If that's what you meant then
That is the truth. That was FDR's only way out of his failed economic programs. Churchill new about the attack on Pearl and held it back from ol FDR to make sure that the US would enter the war. For some reason i believe that he shared that info with FDR as well.
I don't know where you got the information on Churchill but I do know that George Catlet Marshall knew of the attack, no matter what excuse he put forth. I knew a couple of mates and captains of sea going tugs who were in the area on the day of infamy and they were ordered away from pearl 2 days before the attack, after the attack they were ordered back to Pearl. They of course have been dead for a few years but they could tell alot about the incident. Swampy
Please don't tell me you're still arguing that the government programs of the 1930's brought us out of the Great Depression. WWII is the one and only thing that brought us out of the Great Depression. If that's what you meant then
Yep, WWII... thanks for the beer, but I have reached my limit....
Though what was WWII financially to the people of the us except massive amounts of government spending and jobs for lots of US people. Seems if you could replace the war with another reason to spend the money, you would have the same effect. Or is that to simplified of thought process....Yep, WWII... thanks for the beer, but I have reached my limit....
Actually, I believe you would find that all the orders for goods, from Europe, prior to the US involvement in the war, brought America out of the depression. People were looking for a place to dump their cash, and America was it. After the US joined the war, it created a lot of jobs, but didn't make life much better, with so many men gone, and shortages.
I read a book about it back when i was in college. I don't remeber the name of it, but it was about how the attack on Pearl was what finally drew the US into the war. It told of how the govt was attempting to keep on the Japanese consulate in NY. As i recall the British were heavily tracking the Japanese Navy in the pacific and had broken their code. The book revealed that Churchill and the Brits knew about the Japanese plans for Pearl for a week prior to the attack. Chruchill was desperate at the time from the heavy bombing the Nazi's were dishing out to them, and decided to keep this information to himself. It was the hand he was waiting for to finally get the US to enter WWII. Even the Japanese did not inform their Ambassador in the US until Dec. 6th, with that on Dec.7 after the attack their Consulate was empty. It was a good read. If i run across the book i will pass it on.
The US was involved with the war effort prior to 1941 through the lend lease acts, in which we were producing war materials(guns, jeeps, food, etc) and supplying it to our allies. The British were in a bad place with low natural resorces and the Russians were behind the times technologically and were playing catch up with industrial production. Early in the war, we produced a large number of tanks, truck, jeeps and ships that were used in the Africa Campaign by the Brits.
Last edited:
S
shortstop20
Well-known member
You stole the words out of my mouth Puff_N_AK. Churchill needed the US to enter the war, as they and the other Allied nations couldn't fight off Germany forever. For the US it was either join the war now with the help of our Allies or join the war later and fight without the help of Britian(and Russia for that matter), which gives the US little chance to launch a ground attack in Europe.
That depends, is any of this money going to Acorn? If so you already know the answer.
That depends, is any of this money going to Acorn? If so you already know the answer.
Yah, there is a lot of disagreement on that point. Were we already coming out of the depression before the war, or was it during / after the war? I think one thing that is safe to say was that during the war, things got a lot better for the people in the US, job wise. True life didn't get better during the war, but there was a large accumulation of wealth from everybody during this time. After the war, they came home and spent it.
The main issue it seems is that in a recession, people do not want to spend money, they hold onto it. Therefore, some outside entity (being government or through international trade) needs to push an influx of money into the economy (buying things, infrastructure projects) to help stimulate job growth.
Last edited:
Yep, WWII... thanks for the beer, but I have reached my limit....
The internet is great for exposing the ignorant...even though they have the power of the internet to research the very information to which they are spouting off about.... What a genius you are. Still clueless.... still not paying anything but sales tax.....still a pretender.
Keep up the good work... It lets the rest of us that contribute know what will become of all our hard work.....and that is a gift that just keeps on giving...
Wow, almost like the same thing posted in the other thread. Shouldn't you have said something is gay by now? Let me know if you ever want to actually join the discussion. Apparently you seem to think you need permission to enter it.
Maybe you are worried, that some retard will call you stupid or an idiot. No worries, it doesn't hurt at all..
Last edited:
...and you wonder why I think you are a socialist/communist!!!???? Go figure? You are in favor of forcing people to spend their money a certain way....fu(k me....do you say Hail Obama every night in your living room?
When it comes to the point of this stimulus bill yes, though not to the extent you seem to make out...
I just don't see the point in all tax payers paying for some to put that money into a savings account where it will not do any good, won't stimulate demand at all... Seems pointless to me.
So if I gave you 10 bucks for food that you needed and you didn't spend it at all, I don't have the right to be angry. Dumb maybe, but not angry? Not sure if that example is worth it..
So your of the mind set that we should let the economy fall hard and fast so that it will rebound quicker faster? I could go with that standpoint. Seems like it has to be an either or on this issue. Either you stay out completely and let the bottom fall out, or you try and keep.
the bottom from falling too far down. Not sure which is best, but I do know which one is far more complicated. Though, I will add that it seems these days were are much more dependent upon each other for our basic necessities then we used to be... That might make the "Let the bottom fall out faster" standpoint more interesting. I would think you would run the risk of a worst case scenario by letting it hit the bottom hard.
Very true. I guess I am not arguing that it is not good, just that paying a person to do a job first, and then having that person buy a tv is better then just giving that person money, and he goes out and buys the tv. Seems like you get more "bang for your buck".
The other issue is if that person just puts that money in a savings account and does nothing with it.
An interesting theme that I am picking up is that if a person buys a tv (to stay on the tv example) there are many benefits to that sale, many jobs created and such. Then why is it when government does the same thing, we view the benefits as nothing, or much reduced? It seems to me what is "Good for the goose, is good for the gander"....
Keep it going, please. I like hearing your thoughts on the subject.
Last edited:
Read Good to Go's explanation about the tv. That might help to clarify the tangible benefits of the spending, even thought the direct result of the spending might not be viewed as important.
I agree with your definition of waste, based on the above, there is not waste, just missed opportunity with government spending.
