my two cents (the beginning)

[dbebesi]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in505316.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2...3/usw_iraq.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm


THERE YA GO

now, you please research, before insultings me any further.

note: he's paid 35 million into palistine suicide bombers in just the last 4 years. that equals out to 3500 people.

i truely wasn't going to post again, i just hate to see such uninformed people.

[YogsVR4]

Nuts - you beat me to the links.

About the only thing that can be said is splitting hairs. He didn't fund the bombers directly; he funded their survivors, which was giving an incentive to the potential suicide bombers.

[carrrnuttt]

ALL those links come from the same canned White House release by Donald Rumsfeld, during the days leading up to the Iraqi War, when they were busy trying to find justification for it. Yep, REAAAAAL believable.

You have anything else besides those?

Now, if you are referring to the suicide bombers that were being employed DURING the "war", then you should read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081001/

Now go get informed, son.

[DGB454]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C48822%2C00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1309

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2002-04-03/usw_iraq.asp

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_560030.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin050202.asp

[2strokebloke]

i just hate to see such uninformed people.

That makes two of us. so what about your proof of a healthy growing economy? You told me that employment rates apparently have nothing to do with the economic well being of a country. That was my take on it, so now it's your turn to present your ideas.
But for kripes sake don't try and claim that a marginal increase in profits for big corporations is a better indicator of a growing economy than how many people are actually being employed.

As for suicide bomber funding, although I didn't argue with that, I must point out that that in my opinion, giving money to families who's members have chosen to kill themselves is still better than enslaving their children and forcing them to fight as soldiers - like what Burma (the biggest offender in this respect), and a few other countries do. But Burma isn't Iraq, and isn't lead by Saddam, so obviously Bush couldn't give a damn.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

ALL those links come from the same canned White House release by Donald Rumsfeld, during the days leading up to the Iraqi War, when they were busy trying to find justification for it. Yep, REAAAAAL believable.

You have anything else besides those?

Now, if you are referring to the suicide bombers that were being employed DURING the "war", then you should read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081001/

Now go get informed, son.

Young man, CBS is not an affiliate of the white house and did not can that article. The last time I checked, the BBC was considered to be an independant source of news and touted by many people here who disagree with the white house.

Your condescending attitude is not helping your cause.

I suggest you get informed, son.

[dbebesi]

hehe, i got a load comming for ya'll. have some appointments to tend to yet tonight, but check later and i'll explain to you 2 stokebloke, why the conservative ecnonmy works, in great detail, and how the democrats take credit for it while destroying it. few hours i'll have it all up for you.

[2strokebloke]

I thought we we're discussing the "revival" of the economy as credited to Bush & Co, and whether or not employment rates have anything to do with a healthy economy, rather than the differences between the liberal and conservative ideals of how our economy should function.... but it's your thread, so take it where you want.

[YogsVR4]

I thought we we're discussing the "revival" of the economy as credited to Bush & Co, and whether or not employment rates have anything to do with a healthy economy

As to that, its something we've hashed over before. The president and congress can only get out of the way or damage the economical environment. Raising taxes directly hurts business. Cutting taxes doesn't hurt but doesn't directly help a business (though more money in there pocket potentialy spurs the economy). People spending money spurs the economy. Unless we all become hunter gatherers again, commerce is what puts money in our pockets and food on the table.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Your condescending attitude is not helping your cause.

I suggest you get informed, son.

Ironic.

LOL

[2strokebloke]

The president and congress can only get out of the way or damage the economical environment.

Thanks for backing me up, Mr. VR4.

[dbebesi]

ok, don't be jumping the gun before i can respond, please. now LET ME EXPLAIN how the consertative views on economy have EVERYTHING to do with the revival of america's economy, b/c bush backs these basic principles. and if this has already been discussed, i'm going to go into GRAVE detail.

there are two main parts to this lengthy process (b/c you can't change the economy overnite). first of all there is the development of new and inovative life altering products, and the rule of 10/80.

ok, by life altering product, i am reffering to a product such as the invention of the car, microwave, television, radio, phone (and later cell phones) electricity, computers, and the internet.

by the rule of 10/80, i am reffering to the scientific data showing that a new life altering product takes 2 decades to be owned by 90% of the public (and i am reffing to the american public, so don't tell me how people in the backlands of nigeria don't have microwaves and cars). ok a new life altering product is released to the public, lets use the microwave for instence. the microwave was first introduced as a for sale item in 1947. it was 6 feet tall and wieghed 750 pounds, with a staggering cost of $5000 (a hell of a lot back then) produced by the raytheon company . elitest bought these mammoths, and was present in a little less than 10% of households at the end of the decade. in 1957 amana released a countertop version that cost less than $500 and buisness exploded. buy 1975 it was reported than 60% of american households had a microwave, and before mid 80's hit, 90% had microwaves. the same parrellels extremely close with computers and cell phones in the 80/90's. thus the rule of 10/80. the first decade, give or take, 10% own this life altering product, the second decade 80% more jump on in.

now, you may be wondering why i just wasted your time with this (i see that in a quote, you are not truely listening). well that's where the investors come in. the stock market, wheter you like it or not, controls a lot (almost all) of our economy, and it's not going to change. and when these life altering products are first being developed, and talked about being distributed to the public, there is much speculation and hestation to invest in them. what would you think if someone came to you with a phone the size of a football, that barely got reception, telling you how it's going to change the world, cause you can take the phone anywhere. would you invest you money in that. most likely not (i wouldn't), b/c it would be very risky. thus making it a high risk stock. soo how do these idea's get large scale funding through the stock market? lets take a computer/internet and cell phone for specifics. computers with internet capabiltys have been around since late WW2, and became highly used by the government in the 60's to send text messages that couldn't be picked up by russia. not until the early 80's did anyone suggest making computers a household item. no investors would touch it. computers were outragously priced, and in huge subzero freezers the size of a gas station, the public could never own them. but the investment opportunity was there. well in 1981, reagan passed the tax cuts (during a failing economy). it was a 25% tax cut over 3 years. 5% cut in 81, 10% in 82, and 10% 83. these cuts pleased the rich the most. b/c now in 83 the rich have 25% more of there annual income to play with. and what did they do with this money? they invested it in high risk stocks, hoping for a winner. stocks like microsoft and apple. and BOOM. by the early nighties, computers were starting to show up in households across america, the internet started to be truely born, cell phones where first heard of (hehe, remember the cell phone zach, in saved by the bell had?). well how convienent that the 80% boom happened during the clinton administration. they looked great (remember, gore invented the internet). and now the 80% is coming to a close. most people have cell phones, computers (or at least public access to them), and the internet. these products have peaked off. computers for what we use them for, don't really need to evolve much more. cell phone's aren't really needing camera's in them (imo) and can't get much smaller, and the internet has literally no end to it. this growing economy could of continued however. bush sr, shouldn't have raised taxes back up for one (omg, i'm admitting a republican made a mistake), and niether should have clinton. maybe we would have made it furthur than we have on hydrogen fuel cells, or "virtual reality". but you can only speculate and guess on those subjects.

and who care's abouts these products? what do they have to do with the unemployment rates and a struggling economy? these inovative life altering products need to be developed, made, retailed, and bought. creating many, many jobs (good jobs). during the 90's tons of people where employed at compter manufactering jobs, development jobs, sales jobs, and distibuting jobs. not to mention the 90's explotion of dot.com jobs. plus people making and selling cell phones. well these jobs are slowly decreasing. something needs to take it's place. whatever it may be we may not know yet. who knew of a cell phone or internet in the early 80's?

the policies, of tax cuts, high risk investment, and the rule of 10/80 need to be placed back into effect. let the growing dollar of high risk investors decide what it will be next (use there money, not the goverments). if these tax cuts take place, by 2024, something new will of changed our lives forever in a huge way.

president bush supports these views on economic views. and i whole heartedly agree with them. now i challenge all you democrats out there, you explain how the democrat policies work to better our economy for long term growth. and if you can find it, i'd sure like to know what john kerry's plan is. thank you, and have a good night.

p.s. sorry i didn't spell check it

[2strokebloke]

soo how do these idea's get large scale funding through the stock market? lets take a computer/internet and cell phone for specifics. computers with internet capabiltys have been around since late WW2, and became highly used by the government in the 60's to send text messages that couldn't be picked up by russia. not until the early 80's did anyone suggest making computers a household item. no investors would touch it. computers

It's funny you mention computers - because actually the stock market had very little to do with the creation of the home computer, or it's success.
Back in 1977 there were three "big" computers launched, the Apple II, the Tandy TRS-80, and the Commodore PET.
The ONLY computer that had actually been developed with any help from investors (who weren't just freinds of the designers) was the TRS-80.
Apple of course had been started by the two Steves, largely from their own pockets to make the Apple 1, and profits earned from the 1 helped them develop the II. The Commodore PET was produced by an established company, which did have plenty of investors - but the computer itself was designed largely by one man (Chuck Peddle) and mostly with his own money - Commodore just put the finishing touches on it and put it into production.
In fact large companies with many, many investors backing them hesitated to enter the home computer market - it was individual entrepeneurs who were largely responsible the creation, and for the success of the home computer.
Investors and large companies would have never touched the things, for various reasons (IBM for example thought home computers would mean a drop in business for them, because they'd be taking away business from their mainframe manufacturing - what a stupid and misslead idea).
And as for IBM's successful entry into the PC market - it was actually initiated against the wishes of the big brass and investors! Thank god some people know a good idea when they see it, even if most don't.

I think the stock market is the stupidest thing in the world when it comes to running a successful corporation - I'll explain later today, but I have to go right now.

[dbebesi]

you are EXACTLY right! they had an established company backing them, with private investors. and you are also correct in saying that large companies and stock market investors were hesitant to get into the computer game. you are EXACTLY correct IN 1977. all that is true in 1977-78-79-80-81. but by the end of the 83 tax cuts were the large stock market investments. the absolute driving force behind these companies. comparing private investors to stock investors, is like comparing a putter to a driver.

and love or hatethe stock market, it's not going to disapear. so why not utilize it to the fullest extent.

i also need to run we'll have to continue our dabate a little later, this is fun

[2strokebloke]

Actually I'm not through with the stock market, because the stock market is the main reason for many problems with the economy. The stock market is entirely concerned about short term profit. Investors are good to get something moving, but they will ruin everything in the long run.
One reason is control, a company cannot be run in one direction, if all the major investors have different ideas about which direction the company should be going. Henry Ford, with his giant ego couldn't stand this, so by the end of the 1920s he had bought back nearly all of the stock he had sold in his company during it's first few years of operation - even paying more for it than it was worth in some instances. He made the right choice. Ransom E. Olds left his company, Oldsmobile - because the directors and investors wanted him to design cars that he didn't want to sell.
further, the stock market is responsible for poor craftsmanship, the loss of American jobs, and the decline of American industry.
For example - Dodge, they moved their engine production facilities to Mexico for cheaper labor. O.K. so American jobs lost - that's one strike against them
Strike two? They don't pass the savings of their reduced production costs on to American consumers.
Why would they do this? Simple, they're not concerned with an end product, or with satisfying customers - they're only interested in making their profit growth look higher so they can make the stock investors happy. That's disgusting.
Further as has been common with American companies - if the profits fall - just lay off a few hundred or thousand people - bam, you just made your numbers look good again (at least for a while) and your stock holders are pleased. It's a great way to run a company short term, but it's also a great way to go out of business in the long term.
This is exactly what is wrong with the domestic car manufacturers, this is why import sales have increased so dramatically since the 1970s. The American companies were telling the American people what they wanted - rather than listening to them and giving them what they actually wanted. When they scrambled to beat the foreign threat in the 70s - they lost because they weren't prepared, they rushed in to build compacts to get in on the market and make a quick profit (again, happy stockholders) but they hadn't done their research well enough, and it didn't take long for the American consumer to become disenchanted with cars like the Vega and Pinto. The worst part is the long term effect - there are people who will never buy another Ford or Chevy because they owned one of these cars. Lesson learned the hard way - in a capitalist free market economy, it's the consumer who get's their say, not the bean counters and stock holders.
Further more, it's impossible to have any truly original ideas or inventions - because we don't have individuals anymore - engineers have no freedom of design, there are no more men like Olds, or Issigonis, or Andre Citroen in the automotive industry. The director of the company doesn't say "make a car that meets these parameters" and then lets the engineers do whatever they want to achieve those goals. Everything has to go through a comitee and turn into the same boring blob that every other company has.
Why? As you've already admitted, investors don't like to take chances (as well as stupid safety and emissions crap, etc. etc. etc.) if the head of the company held a conference and said "nobody has ever built anything like this before" only a few adventurous investors would decide to stay on.
Now that I really think about it - everything these days is designed to keep anybody from being creative.
Anyway, I have to disagree with your idea that a "conservative" economy is one where nothing ever happens - in keeping with the conservative idea that anybody can do anything if they try hard enough, it's the little guys, the backyard tinkerers, and the independent entrepeneurs who are our hope for the future - because they'll be the ones putting the slow moving, giant bureaucracies out of business.