The US government has no moral high ground to stand on. The US Dollar has nothing to stand on.

The economy has been much worse off the last couple years than it is now. The US foreign relations are much better now than during the Bush administration.

Obama was starting to repair the damage, but then the shadow government told him to get on message or get a bullet. So here we are.

It'll be fun to watch.

Globalisation has destroyed our economy, as it was meant to do. The global plutocracy has hated the US ever since the revolution, spreading our ideas, causing them trouble. Now they get back at us, leaving us a third world country without manufacturing.

Happy Republicans? Happy democratic dupes?

[deleted]

A one world tyranny, one world with all the eggs in one basket. It's not adaptive. It probably wouldn't be adaptive if the people in charge could be trusted. But since they are the evil global plutocracy, only out to further enrich themselves, the reality of an integrated global entity is like turning the world into a single prison.

with a screen name like yours - I suspect you already have the answers you are looking for.

asswipe

You haven't worked out what it's about yet.

The devaluation of US currency causes inflation, which is basically a massive wealth transfer from people who hold cash, and bonds, to those with physical assets.

This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the downfall of the USA, which will only happen if its population grows some gonads and starts asking why they're being screwed over all of the time.

AKA we pay taxes, which are used to purchase bonds, which as Ron Paul states is "illiquid" aka worthless. So we are giving them our money for IOUs a la Dumb and Dumber.

AKA we pay taxes, which are used to purchase bonds

Your taxes are used to fight wars and pay social security.

The US government sells bonds to raise money to pay the deficit.

I'm not the smartest with all the vocab and economic stuff.

Come on, give it a go!

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA

WHAT'S ON FOX? HOW AMERICAN IDOL OR HOW ABOUT PALIN'S ALASKA?

LA LA LA EVERYTHING'S FINE. ahhhhh juicy mcdonalds hamburger with bacon. I know, I'll buy a new coffee table with my credit card.

Imminent? You're soaking in it!

DAE think that the downfall of the USA is really, really imminent now?

Yes, unless we invade Iran.

Man, that's some tasty kool-aid!

Kool-aid? Look at history. How do you think we got out of the Great Depression?

A. WWII

B. You're a gimp

C. All of the above

So every time we're facing an economic slump, let's just go to war! Problem solved, forever!

How's that working out for you?

It's working out great. Every time I go to war, my economy is fixed. I strongly urge all people, if they are broke, to just go to war! My problems are solved, forever!

How's being a gimp working out for you?

So your contention is that war fixes the economy, always?

My last reply was entirely sarcastic because I thought you were trolling me. Please cite a separate post where I contended 'that war fixes the economy always'.

From the OP:

In the past few weeks, it seems the US has taken huge, huge hits. It seems unlikely that given the leaks coming out about the Federal Reserve that the USD can maintain it's value. The Fed 'bailed out' every major banking institution in the entire world. By giving them a shit ton of free money.

Your response to the thread title:

Yes, unless we invade Iran.

Your command to me:

Look at history.

Which you then proceeded to list one "historical precedent" with no supporting evidence that declaring war directly resulted in recovering the economy and two non-answers to fake legitimacy of your opinion.

Problem?

Clearly you do not understand. I never contended that any and all wars fix ailing economies in all situations. This is what I asked you to prove. If you can't do it I understand, and if you don't reply to this that will be my assumption. It's irrelevant that I:

proceeded to list one "historical precedent" with no supporting evidence that declaring war directly resulted in recovering the economy and two non-answers to fake legitimacy of your opinion.

and also irrelevant that you posted:

From the OP: In the past few weeks, it seems the US has taken huge, huge hits. It seems unlikely that given the leaks coming out about the Federal Reserve that the USD can maintain it's value. The Fed 'bailed out' every major banking institution in the entire world. By giving them a shit ton of free money.

Problem?

Yeah:

Please cite a separate post where I contended 'that war fixes the economy always'.

Your turn gimp.

I'm not sure how my question TO YOU became my stance. That's strange. I was trying to clarify your meaning, and that turned into you saying that is my stance on the issue and calling me a gimp for not understanding your position, which was why I asked the question in the first place.

I'm not about to try and prove that all wars fix ailing economies, specifically because I strongly disagree, which was the entire point of me asking if that was your stance in the first place.

If you're having trouble following the conversation, you can always click on the "context" link under the post and see what's already been said.

Word. Kool-aid is for chumps.

So what's your stance? Were you insinuating that wars automatically stimulate the economy, holding WWII up as your (only) proof?

My stance is that the statement:

Yes, unless we invade Iran.

Holds some truth. I never said that wars automatically stimulate the economy. But if you count the military industrial complex as part of the economy, I don't see how it wouldn't.

By saying:

Man that's some tasty kool-aid!

You seem to be implying that my original comment is completely without any factual basis. I provided some factual basis for you, but I guess that wasn't enough for you? Is that it? Honestly at this point I just want to figure this out. I'm sorry I called you a gimp, it was uncalled for.

You are correct, stating that war drives the economy is historically accurate to a degree.

However, examining the situation as it stands currently with our military and economic standing, it's very difficult to support what appears to be a blanket assertion supporting war with Iran to "lift all boats", as it were. Especially considering everything that's going on with the tax cuts right now.

In fact, a war with Iran stands to destabilize the region even more. It may go without saying, but Israel's only serious opposition in the region is Iran. If we knock Iran out of the picture, even if we do it "successfully", then the job isn't over because we would then have to combat Israel's expansion progrom BY OURSELVES. The rest of the world would, I suspect, see it as karmic justice to let the US go it alone against the Israeli war machine we've helped create over the decades. if you put any stock in the stories that US officials have been willingly, almost openly passing nuclear secrets to Israeli attaches for years, that even further complicates the issue.

And as much as I disagree that a war with Iran could be classified as potentially profitable for the American people, I'm 100% sure that fighting Israel would be America's total undoing, provided we could make it that far without destroying ourselves first.

You are correct, stating that war drives the economy is historically accurate to a degree.

Then why the kool-aid comment? Why the hate? Why not respectfully disagree from the get go?

For the same reasons you called me gimp.

I called you a gimp because of the kool-aid attack. I did nothing to provoke that sort of slander. I demand an apology

What's your stance on attacking Iran, re: the economy?

Man, that's some tasty kool-aid!

It's working out great. Every time I go to war, my economy is fixed. I strongly urge all people, if they are broke, to just go to war! My problems are solved, forever!

How's being a gimp working out for you?

So your contention is that war fixes the economy, always?

My last reply was entirely sarcastic because I thought you were trolling me. Please cite a separate post where I contended 'that war fixes the economy always'.

You are correct, stating that war drives the economy is historically accurate to a degree.

Then why the kool-aid comment? Why the hate? Why not respectfully disagree from the get go?