Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Economy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That would require starting a regional war that Iran is clearly going to lose. Even if you think the US record in Iraq is shit, Saddam Hussein is dead and his entire regime is ashes.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
      That would require starting a regional war that Iran is clearly going to lose. Even if you think the US record in Iraq is shit, Saddam Hussein is dead and his entire regime is ashes.
      How’s that whole “Iraq will pay for itself” thing coming along? Is the trillion (plus) dollar check in the mail yet?

      I am so tired of GOPers launching unnecessary wars of aggression.
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
        I am so tired of GOPers launching unnecessary wars of aggression.
        Defending 50% of an ally's vital world oil output is an unnecessary war of aggression? On what planet?

        I also remind you that Ops DELIBERATE FORCE (Bosnia), GOTHIC SERPENT (Somalia), and ALLIED FORCE (Kosovo) were all Bill Clinton's doing. At the very least, we had strategic reasoning, as much as you want to disagree with them, going into Iraq. There were no strategic reasons to intervene between butchers trying to butcher each other.

        Then under Obama, we've got Lybia and ISIS. Of all the POTUS since WWII, ONLY ONE did not initiate military actions, Gerald Ford, a GOPer. I think it's long past you get off that GOP warmonger soapbox. The facts are against you.
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 01:14.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
          Defending 50% of an ally's vital world oil output is an unnecessary war of aggression? On what planet?

          I also remind you that Ops DELIBERATE FORCE (Bosnia), GOTHIC SERPENT (Somalia), and ALLIED FORCE (Kosovo) were all Bill Clinton's doing. At the very least, we had strategic reasoning, as much as you want to disagree with them, going into Iraq. There were no strategic reasons to intervene between butchers trying to butcher each other.

          Then under Obama, we've got Lybia and ISIS. Of all the POTUS since WWII, ONLY ONE did not initiate military actions, Gerald Ford, a GOPer. I think it's long past you get off that GOP warmonger soapbox. The facts are against you.
          Sorry, I could have sworn I mentioned “unnecessary wars of aggression,” and not anything about stopping genocide.
          My mistake?
          Nah.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • What genocide?

            I challenge you. POINT ME OUT THE GENOCIDE!

            Unnecessary Wars of Agreesion! Operation DELIBERATE FORCE allowed the Croats to evict over 140,000 Serbs from their homes. GOTHIC SERPENT just allowed another warlord into Aidid's place who did the exact same thing. Op ALLIED FORCE evicted 164,000 Serbs from Kosovo. Go on! Point out to me who did what!

            You will find on this board testimonies of both UNPROFOR General Lewis MacKenzie and myself detailing that there were no good guys in there. We were against the Kosovo War, stating outright that the KLA was nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs. The fact that Kosovo was turned into a drug smuggling whorehouse is testimony to that fact. UNLIKE YOU, however, we do support the war once it was declared. Soldiers know only one way to peace - victory. But it was MOST CERTAINLY AN UNNECESSARY VICTORY! We turned Kosovo into a whorehouse.

            The FACTS ARE STILL AGAINST YOU! YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT IT'S YOUR MISTAKE!

            And Do I need to go on about Syria and ISIS? Or are you just too awe inspired by a Democrat POTUS NOT to see the sewage we got ourselves into?

            And for damned sure! Was Vietnam necessary?

            And finally ON WHAT PLANET is defending World Oil Output is AN UNNECESSARY WAR OF AGGRESSION? ESPECIALLY When Iran is the one STARTING this!

            If this was Obama, you would be praising this action!
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 07:23.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • well, neither Syria nor Libya constituted the morass that Iraq was. same thing with Bosnia and Kosovo. yeah, sure, a lot of dead bodies -- but mostly not US/Allied/Coalition.

              to be fair to Trump, every time he has been pressed to hit the "invade" button, he has shied away. Korea, Venezuela, Iran. Bolton's out and he was Mr I want to Invade Everywhere.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • What genocide?
                Does it not count if the ethnic clensing is by so-called Christians in the former Yugoslavia vs. mere Muslims?
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                  What genocide?
                  Does it not count if the ethnic clensing is by so-called Christians in the former Yugoslavia vs. mere Muslims?
                  I have news for you. The Muslims were the victors ... with our help! The end result was the Muslims and the Roman Catholic Croats ethnic cleansing the Orthadox Christian Serbs ... and we help the Muslims and the Croats to do so. So again, who did what to whom? All we did was to helped one set of butchers against another set of butchers.

                  And btw, ethnic cleansing is only a recent term came about in the 1990s. Before that, we described it as population displacement, not genocide.
                  Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 18:21.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    well, neither Syria nor Libya constituted the morass that Iraq was. same thing with Bosnia and Kosovo. yeah, sure, a lot of dead bodies -- but mostly not US/Allied/Coalition.
                    Korea and Vietnam were far worst than Iraq. Wars started by Democrats.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 18:28.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Korea and Vietnam were far worst than Iraq. Wars started by Democrats.
                      eh...I wouldn't go so far to say that those wars were "started" by Democrats...Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh had something to do with it, too. given the Cold War context, either a Democratic or Republican President would need to respond-- if not out of fear from looking weak in front of the USSR, then looking weak to the US voter.

                      Iraq, on the other hand, was much more of a war of choice. Bush didn't -have- to go into Iraq. same thing with libya/kosovo/bosnia-- but again, Iraq was much worse.

                      in any case, we're talking about now. ironically there is much more of a foreign policy consensus than there used to be. Bolton was the old school holdover in favor of interventionism but he's gone now.

                      both liberal internationalism "responsibility to protect" and neoconservatism "democracy promotion" are dead as foreign policies go.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        eh...I wouldn't go so far to say that those wars were "started" by Democrats...Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh had something to do with it, too. given the Cold War context, either a Democratic or Republican President would need to respond-- if not out of fear from looking weak in front of the USSR, then looking weak to the US voter.
                        Rhee had just as much to do with the Korean War as did Kim. If we didn't intervene, it would have been just a fight between two tin pot dictators. Vietnam was already lost before US intervention. It should have been left as another lost French colony.

                        And no one even knew where Korea or Vietnam was until the US made it a fuss to her voters.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 20:02.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • like i said, Cold War context -- all of this mattered domestically. this was middle of Second Red Scare, it was death for domestic politicians to look weak on communism. there was no difference between the Dems and GOP here; the GOP under Goldwater was talking about using nukes in Vietnam (and on China before that).

                          Bush purposefully chose Iraq for the all-out regime change because he figured it was going to be easy -- easier than beating up on Kim -- and he could remake the Middle East, and look like Mr Strong War Leader. he didn't -need- to do it even for domestic purposes, he was at 70-80% support post 9-11. he was willing to burn off some of the support/political capital because he felt there was going to be a payoff both for the US and his party later.

                          bottom-line: i agree with you, Dems (ie Clinton, Obama) certainly picked some "wars of aggression" in the recent past. the targets they pick tend to be small, the method they use tend to be via missiles and bombs.

                          Bush did...rather more than that.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            like i said, Cold War context -- all of this mattered domestically. this was middle of Second Red Scare, it was death for domestic politicians to look weak on communism. there was no difference between the Dems and GOP here; the GOP under Goldwater was talking about using nukes in Vietnam (and on China before that).
                            Which again, no one noticed until the POTUS acted. Korea would have never happened if the Soviet ambassador had not left ithe UNSC n protest. The JCS read Korea right. Stalin wanted to bleed us of men and machines using Korean and Chinese blood. I remind you that more men and machines went to Europe than to Korea. Left to the JCS, Korea would not have been fought.

                            No one cared one iota about the 1962 Sino-Indo War. Who took notice about the umpteen wars in Africa? Vietnam was already lost after Diem Bien Phu. The US immediately propped up South Vietnam who was bound to lose an election to Ho Chi Minh to unify the country. Didn't help that HCM was betrayed by China in allowing South Vietnam to come into being.

                            Again, the point being, no one would have noticed if the US had just backed off. The Vietminh had already won and it was the French who lost it, just like they lost Algiers. No one would have noticed.

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            Bush purposefully chose Iraq for the all-out regime change because he figured it was going to be easy -- easier than beating up on Kim
                            Have news for you. It was easy. All OPOBJs were achieved and achieved fast. It's dealing with unintended consequences that was hard and always will be hard.

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            -- and he could remake the Middle East, and look like Mr Strong War Leader. he didn't -need- to do it even for domestic purposes, he was at 70-80% support post 9-11. he was willing to burn off some of the support/political capital because he felt there was going to be a payoff both for the US and his party later.
                            Would the US be better off with a Saddam with buried nuclear weapons research and a copy of the CICH-4 warhead? I remind you that this is the same Saddam who was stupid enough to try to assassinate Bush Sr while fighting both an insurgency and an air war that lasted 10 years. As bad as ISIS is, they are nowhere close to being as dangerous as a stupid Saddam with his finger on a NBC stockpile.

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            bottom-line: i agree with you, Dems (ie Clinton, Obama) certainly picked some "wars of aggression" in the recent past. the targets they pick tend to be small, the method they use tend to be via missiles and bombs.
                            Small? We did Afghanistan with a smaller force than SFOR and KFOR. Let's keep some perspective here. They're "smaller" but by no means, "small" and most certainly not their impact on the European scene as the Russians learned that they could not protect their own interests in an European region not controlled by NATO. Crimea is a direct result of Kosovo. You know, the thing about unintended consequences?

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            Bush did...rather more than that.
                            Yes, he did but the point remains. Democrats POTUS ain't no angels and could be and have been just as stupid.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Sep 19,, 23:32.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Whether Iraq was a cluster doesn't change that we casually tossed the regime out like it was a carton of spoiled milk, and proceeded to hunt down most of the senior leaders until even Saddam Hussein was dangling.

                              Those are the stakes you are playing with if you want to try to shut down the world's oil supply. You can certainly gamble, but if you pull up a deuce instead of an ace, you lose the ball game.

                              Will Iran try to play the same game to cost Trump the election? Probably not, since it:
                              A. won't drive up oil for long after all their crap is blown up
                              B. will result in Iran losing a lot of crap including whatever pity points they are currently getting
                              C. will probably backfire and give Trump a rally-'round-the-flag effect by blowing up Iran's stuff
                              Last edited by GVChamp; 05 Oct 19,, 15:05.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • What’s your inflation rate?

                                Source: https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/ap

                                If you live in a major American city, the rate of inflation has been historically low for a very long time. Yet, many people don’t seem to think that’s the case. They feel that their own personal inflation rate is higher than the headline figures.

                                Price changes, Jan-Sept 2019 vs. five years ago (and, average annual percent change):

                                Beans, dried, any type and all sizes: -10.0% (-2.1% p.a.)
                                White flour, all purpose: -16.9% (-3.6% p.a.)
                                Uncooked rice, white long grain, +4.5% (+0.9% p.a.)
                                Spaghetti and macaroni, -7.3% (-1.5% p.a.)
                                Bread, white, -7.9% (-1.6% p.a.)
                                Bread, whole wheat, -5.5% (-1.1% p.a.)
                                Margarine, soft tubs, -22.4% (-5.0% p.a.)
                                Whole milk, -18.1% (-3.9% p.a.)
                                Cheddar cheese, -4.6% (-0.9% p.a.)

                                Uncooked ground beef, all types: +0.2% (0.0% p.a.)
                                Uncooked ground beef, lean and extra lean -0.2% (-1.0% p.a.)
                                Chuck roast, +5.1% (+1.0% p.a.), but excluding USDA Prime and Choice, +18.6% (+3.5% p.a.)
                                Steak, round, +5.6% (+1.1% p.a.)
                                Steak, Sirloin USDA Choice, boneless +0.2% (0.0% p.a.)
                                Beef for stew, boneless, +10.2% (+2.0% p.a.)
                                Bacon, slices, -3.3% (-0.7% p.a.)
                                Chops, center-cut, bone-in, -7.0% (-1.4% p.a.)
                                Ham, boneless, excluding canned, -1.3% (-0.3% p.a.)
                                Bologna, sliced, -10.7% (-2.2% p.a.)
                                Chicken, fresh, whole, -1.8% (-0.4% p.a.)
                                Turkey, frozen, whole, -6.4% (-1.3% p.a.)

                                Bananas, -4.7% (-1.0% p.a.)
                                Oranges, navel, +3.9% (+0.8% p.a.)
                                Peaches (Jun-Sept only), +6.5% (+1.3% p.a.)
                                Strawberries, +16.7% (+3.1% p.a.)
                                Grapes, Thompson seedless, -3.4% (-0.7% p.a.)

                                Potatoes, white, +12.0% (+2.3% p.a.)
                                Tomatoes, +19.6% (+3.6% p.a.)
                                Broccoli, +12.5% (+2.4% p.a.)

                                Table wine, red and while, any origin, +5.1% (+1.0% p.a.)
                                Electricity, -0.5% (-0.1% p.a.)

                                Why margarine but not butter? Lack of data. The same is true for most other items, such as soft drinks and coffee: this source has this data, but not that data.
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X