[rock_guitar1990]

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

It's a game about what Bush has done to the United States. Some of it is a little innapropriate but u dont have to play the actual game, just watch the educational parts. I thought it was very humorous but also served a great purpose at the same time.

[aiwahead]

I love its slant..

Love it like a dagger in my AORTA >.<;


For instance. HalliburtoN! Lets blame everything on corporate america, completely forget that our country operates on Capitalism and the fact that *EVERY* candidate has major ties to big buisness.

This isnt the United States of Socialism. Freakin' whiny emo.. grr..

Edit: Oh I love this. "It only takes a president with the brain the size of a plum to realize lowering taxes would have helped the economy. Either democrats or republicans would have done this." Intresting. Emo-nomics seems to forget the current candidate advocates raising taxes by.. what was it, 10%? When your capital base is not exactly the most stable after being seriously shaken up, and STILL not off of alert for further attacks (Please remember that our stock system is a psychological creature, boys and girls), upping taxes is going to really make nice with the brokers. Yeah.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by aiwahead

For instance. HalliburtoN! Lets blame everything on corporate america, completely forget that our country operates on Capitalism and the fact that *EVERY* candidate has major ties to big buisness.

This isnt the United States of Socialism. Freakin' whiny emo.. grr..

Sweet insider deals with the government through which giant corporations waste millions of taxpayer dollars is not "capitalism," and opposing such is in no way to support socialism; it's to oppose theft.

[tApiokA]

good game. i enjoyed it. cheap graphics and all. yah, i said it. booyah!

p.s. the teletubbies were no suprise. I'VE KNOWN IT ALL ALONG!!!

[aiwahead]

Originally Posted by Travis

Sweet insider deals with the government through which giant corporations waste millions of taxpayer dollars is not "capitalism," and opposing such is in no way to support socialism; it's to oppose theft.

"Sweet inside deals" that have provided arrests and the downfall of a corporation that was rotten from the inside out, Hrm? Right. Yeah, that's 'sweet'.

And no, opposition to such wouldnt be socialsm. That isnt quite what I meant. What I meant was the slant they had taken, as usual, leans towards distrubuted wealth via socailist standards. They make no eferences to the ties any other president or current presidential candidate have had to corporations, the fact that Trickle-Down econ allowed the economy to survive trillions of debt in the effort to win an arms race which was much more desirable than an armed conflict.. bleh. I dont feel like going on.

[Zooropa]

Thanks for posting this.

[JerryLove]

For instance. HalliburtoN! Lets blame everything on corporate america, completely forget that our country operates on Capitalism and the fact that *EVERY* candidate has major ties to big buisness.

Dick Cheny has very heavy ties to Haliburton.
Dick Cheny pushed heavily in favor of invading Iraq.
Haliburton made billions from government contract (assigned with no ability for other companies to enter competing bids) off of the invasion.

It looks very much like a person heavily vested in a company invaded a nation in order to make himeself money at the expense of the lives of both Americans and Iraqis... I think this is the complaint.

Even if profit was not a motive for the invasion, Haliburton did not win a contract... rather the administration decided to hand billions of our dollars to a company that would hand some back to them.

For instance. HalliburtoN! Lets blame everything on corporate america, completely forget that our country operates on Capitalism and the fact that *EVERY* candidate has major ties to big buisness.

Personally, I'd rather see our economy function from working people exporting US products than on how the brokers feel today. Bush seems to want to more heavily tie the US economy to something as fickle and arbitrary as the stock martket... I think this has been wrong-thinking for decades.

"Sweet inside deals" that have provided arrests and the downfall of a corporation that was rotten from the inside out, Hrm? Right. Yeah, that's 'sweet'.

Haliburton (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL&d=t) seems just fine. Has something happened to Cheney that I don't know of?

Some have fallen. Enron, after collapsing internally, was investigated. As was Anderson consulting (for whom Dick Cheney was a spokesperson). Though if I'd asked you before that, no one knew anything was wrong. We obviously cannot know how many we don't know about.

And no, opposition to such wouldnt be socialsm. That isnt quite what I meant. What I meant was the slant they had taken, as usual, leans towards distrubuted wealth via socailist standards.

It seems to me that collecting taxes to hand to a corporation which does not compete for those tax dollars doesn't sound like capitalism to me.

They make no eferences to the ties any other president or current presidential candidate have had to corporations

So no one is aware that Kerry's wife is a Heins? I thought that was pretty well known; though he is signifigantly less wealthy than Bush.

[quote] the fact that Trickle-Down econ allowed the economy to survive trillions of debt in the effort to win an arms race which was much more desirable than an armed conflict[/qoute] Huh?

I'm guessing you mean something like "Reagan's Trickle-down economics plan prevented a complete economic breakdown in the 80s".

Actually, the economy under Reagan was quite poor... he funded the build up simply by printing more money (creating the biggest deficit in history until Bush Jr. came along), and what finally got us out of deficit spending was the Clinton administration, who gave us the first balanced budget in more than 2 decades... untli Bush came and set records.

[aiwahead]

Haliburton made billions from government contract (assigned with no ability for other companies to enter competing bids) off of the invasion.

And were subject to scandals and scams by subcontractors like the idiots that tried to charge some exhorbitant amount of cash for a box of Coke O.o. But beyond that, There were no competing bids because, as you know, Halliburton has had that contract for years. Speaking of which, How long HAVE they had that contract? I know it was well into the Clinton admin, but I dont know beyond that.

Personally, I'd rather see our economy function from working people exporting US products than on how the brokers feel today. Bush seems to want to more heavily tie the US economy to something as fickle and arbitrary as the stock martket... I think this has been wrong-thinking for decades.

I think you misquoted.. what were you referring to?

Haliburton (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL&d=t) seems just fine. Has something happened to Cheney that I don't know of?

Some have fallen. Enron, after collapsing internally, was investigated. As was Anderson consulting (for whom Dick Cheney was a spokesperson). Though if I'd asked you before that, no one knew anything was wrong. We obviously cannot know how many we don't know about.

My mistake there, I didnt mean Haliburton. But from what I have heard from people who have dealt with the company, Haliburton as a whole has done a remarkable job for what they do, and that is the reason their contract has never been revoked. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry?

Anyways, Yes, I was talking about Enron/Global/Anderson/Etc.

It seems to me that collecting taxes to hand to a corporation which does not compete for those tax dollars doesn't sound like capitalism to me.

Agreed. Sounds like pork-barreling. :P But the problem is their facts are starkly one sided. I'd like to see the wider figures in one place to see both the bad and the good. Econ isnt morality class.. If it works, it works.

So no one is aware that Kerry's wife is a Heins? I thought that was pretty well known; though he is signifigantly less wealthy than Bush.

I'd hope so. Er. Less wealthy? By household or by single person? Household, obviously there is no contest.. Kerry with Heinz is head and shoulders far above the entire Bush clan. Singularily, I'd like to see. I DO however know that at the very least in the last year Bush has made more cash than Kerry has. That, however, dosent mean that he's more wealthy by any means. I know people in this area that are multi-millionares but still work jobs that pay a relatively low salery, just for 'spending money'. Everything else is tied up in various things. But were they to liquidate all that? -Whistles-

'm guessing you mean something like "Reagan's Trickle-down economics plan prevented a complete economic breakdown in the 80s".

haha. Yeah. It was early, and I hadnt gotten but 2 hours of sleep the last night.
Anyways, Yes. Granted, it was a rather simplistic way of surviving, (And im not defending Bush Sr. Economically the man was a freaking moron. He had the opportunity to take the economy off the way Clinton did but never took advantage of it.) However, survive it did allow us. (Yoda Econ?).

I should clarify myself.. im not defending the *quality* economy in that situation, but that it was a required step and one of brilliance. The USSR couldnt keep up, and it ruined them. Russia still hasnt pulled out of that, quite obviously (And somewhat unfortunately?)

Hey, theres a debate for you, Jerry Was it morally sound that our plan essentially drove their country into the ground, from which they still have yet to recover from? Or would it have been better, from a purely moral point of view, to hold off and continue a cold war?

But back to subject.. and on an edit note, as I completely forgot. While I agree Clinton did well in the greater econ perspective for his first term, the Tech bubble that began growing during his tenure was his fault and his fault alone. In that respect, his econ resulted in the burst that along with 9/11 send the national economy into the toilets in Bush 43's admin.

[teb468]

from what i can remember, Russia has never had a good economy with the exception of a few good leaders before communism, and even then it was only decent. once communism hit, they never had a chance to keep up with America economy wise, especially after losing 22 million people or so and heavy damage to their eastern territory from the Nazi invasion.

Originally Posted by aiwahead

Or would it have been better, from a purely moral point of view, to hold off and continue a cold war?

um, just so you know, we did continue the Cold War until the USSR stopped being communist. its kinda hard to keep up the Cold War when there is no more enemy...
sides, i'm glad it never turned into a full scale war because the world probably wouldn't be as good as it was now.

and i can tell ya, i love paying pack the debt Reagen put us in, and i guess i'll like paying the debt for W too 10-20 years down the road.

[JerryLove]

And were subject to scandals and scams by subcontractors like the idiots that tried to charge some exhorbitant amount of cash for a box of Coke O.o. But beyond that, There were no competing bids because, as you know, Halliburton has had that contract for years. Speaking of which, How long HAVE they had that contract? I know it was well into the Clinton admin, but I dont know beyond that.

The contracts for Iraq were given during and immediately following the invasion in 2002.

I think you misquoted.. what were you referring to?

You've quoted an entirely self-sufficient statement. It should make sense on its own, regardless of what it responds to (though it responds to your assertion that economic policy should be based not on what's acutaly good from production and sale, but rather on what will startle or reassure stock-brokers.

My mistake there, I didnt mean Haliburton. But from what I have heard from people who have dealt with the company, Haliburton as a whole has done a remarkable job for what they do, and that is the reason their contract has never been revoked. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry?

Firstly, they did not have to bid for their contract at all... that, in and of itself, is a violation of basic government methodology. As such, there was no free-market pressure to control costs. I believe that Haliburton was charging something along the lines of $5 per gallon to move gas from Kuwait into Iraq.

Anyways, Yes, I was talking about Enron/Global/Anderson/Etc.

And there are dozens of smaller ones (interesting that Cheny was intemately associated with at least 2 of the ones you listed). Corporate corruption in the US is pretty rampant.

Agreed. Sounds like pork-barreling. :P But the problem is their facts are starkly one sided. I'd like to see the wider figures in one place to see both the bad and the good. Econ isnt morality class.. If it works, it works.

So if Bush skims a billion of the top personally for himself, that's OK as long as the economy works anyway? I must disagree.

I'd hope so. Er. Less wealthy? By household or by single person? Household, obviously there is no contest.. Kerry with Heinz is head and shoulders far above the entire Bush clan.

I do stand corrected. Bush is peronally only worth about $20,000,000 and Cheney about $80,000,000, while Heinz is valued around $1B... though the functional net-worth of Kerry is closer to $57,000,000 (joint assets)... which puts him between Bush and Cheney.

BTW, mentioning income, Cheny is still paid at least $150,000 per year from Haliburtion (who recieved $11 billion in taxpayer dollars from the Bush/Cheney administration for Iraq).

The problem is that the bulk of the bush fortune should be in the hands of Bush Sr... and after more than 20 minutes searching I can't find his reported assets (though Kerry's, George W's, and Jeb's are all handy).. can anyone find a net value on Bush Sr?

I should clarify myself.. im not defending the *quality* economy in that situation, but that it was a required step and one of brilliance. The USSR couldnt keep up, and it ruined them. Russia still hasnt pulled out of that, quite obviously (And somewhat unfortunately?)

I don't know that it was the best or the only way... but I do agree that regan's reckless spending did hasten the fall of the USSR... but nothing was done to fix the economy after it fell... until Clinton.

Hey, theres a debate for you, Jerry Was it morally sound that our plan essentially drove their country into the ground, from which they still have yet to recover from? Or would it have been better, from a purely moral point of view, to hold off and continue a cold war?

If there was a moral failure, it was in not helping them pick up the peices after destroying them in an economic war.

But back to subject.. and on an edit note, as I completely forgot. While I agree Clinton did well in the greater econ perspective for his first term, the Tech bubble that began growing during his tenure was his fault and his fault alone.

And yet there was no fallout as bacd as 1987's Black Wednesday. The economy didn't hiccup so much as the stock market over-inflated and adjusted.

In that respect, his econ resulted in the burst that along with 9/11 send the national economy into the toilets in Bush 43's admin.

And here I though a pair of multi-billion dollar wars and tax structure that encourages American companies to fire American workers in favor of Chinese and Indian workers overseas was doing that.

[aiwahead]

The contracts for Iraq were given during and immediately following the invasion in 2002.

I belive that Haliburton has a constant contract with the US government for supply that has extended (or has been renewed for every conflict) back into the clinton administration, or further than that. I'm not quite sure, as this was admittedly something I was told by my father who worked in the SPR.

I believe that Haliburton was charging something along the lines of $5 per gallon to move gas from Kuwait into Iraq.

I've heard the exact same thing, and I belive it had to do with the same subcontractor that was charging 45$ for a case of coke, that sub contractor was promptly taken care of and sued for compensation I belive. I know the latter was in an article, I'll see if I can find it.

And there are dozens of smaller ones (interesting that Cheny was intemately associated with at least 2 of the ones you listed). Corporate corruption in the US is pretty rampant.

Actually there are dozens of larger ones, not smaller. The majority of those companies are some of the largest in the world, and its a testiment to their new CFO/CEOs that they are still around. Those that tanked such as Enron and (I belive) Global Crossing were rotten to the core and collapsed.

Speaking of which, that added much to the clinton economy. The basic problem with their so called corruption was exhorbitant figures displayed for their earnings, and THEN the enormous amount of cash they were embezzling. The first wasnt really a crime but of course the second was, and was what they mostly got busted for. However, the first would have inflated the surplus by who knows how much?

I think it'd be intresting to see a chart of the surplus in the clinton admin with the losses from those corporations figured in as well.

So if Bush skims a billion of the top personally for himself, that's OK as long as the economy works anyway? I must disagree.

Well no, that would be embezzling. Pork-barreling is technically legal embezzling, granted, but it is still legal and as long as the economy is growing, its growing and thats all that matters to an economist. (Which ironically, can be argued what was the problem that allowed the entire scandal of the coporate corruption to happen.)

I don't know that it was the best or the only way

Well. Honestly, I can think of no better ways than to simply outspend them. Granted he weakened the dollar, but it worked.

but nothing was done to fix the economy after it fell... until Clinton.

Yup. Bush Sr's admin were not economic geniouses.. er.. I cant spell. >.<

And yet there was no fallout as bacd as 1987's Black Wednesday. The economy didn't hiccup so much as the stock market over-inflated and adjusted.

There wasnt? Um. Jer.. The market fell more points than it did on black monday in the 20s.. The saving grace was our extravagantly high volume and the required stops that were put in place.

And here I though a pair of multi-billion dollar wars and tax structure that encourages American companies to fire American workers in favor of Chinese and Indian workers overseas was doing that.

Blah that's republican rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. At the very least, the first part. Wars dont do THAT much damage. (especially ones on such small scales) But the wars DID add to it. However, I'd sooner say it was the wars that turned the economy around than otherwise.

But about the workers thing, I have to dissagree. The current situation is simply placing us at a loss as it has since the 70s.Manufacturing is headed elsewhere.. With cheaper saleries overseas and a weakening dollar (Because of the deficits ensued, The dollar will fall untill we can get some equilibrium.. But that requires time either way. I dont know of much that could possibly strengthen the dollar right now.), it's in the companies' intrest to outsource minor skill jobs to cheaper countries.

However with the current tax situation, once there is some equilibrium between the dollar and the current deficit (Which I have recently heard has actually been reduced by something like 200 mil. Tiny, I know, but its a start) jobs aught to start coming back en masse.

[aiwahead]

Originally Posted by teb468

from what i can remember, Russia has never had a good economy with the exception of a few good leaders before communism, and even then it was only decent. once communism hit, they never had a chance to keep up with America economy wise, especially after losing 22 million people or so and heavy damage to their eastern territory from the Nazi invasion.



um, just so you know, we did continue the Cold War until the USSR stopped being communist. its kinda hard to keep up the Cold War when there is no more enemy...
sides, i'm glad it never turned into a full scale war because the world probably wouldn't be as good as it was now.

and i can tell ya, i love paying pack the debt Reagen put us in, and i guess i'll like paying the debt for W too 10-20 years down the road.

Well. When you start killing your own citizens (11 million by official estimates I belive), Your economy isnt going to go very far in the long run. But hey, they survived for quite a while. In the version of communism they used, you dont NEED a robust economy, as long as everyone gets the same things you can then use the rest to fund the government as is needed (IE make tanks, and make the Gov comfy :P)

Oh btw.. It was the west the nazis invaded ;P Granted, a mistake.. but when you deal with the USSR's territory, um.. thats a BIG mistake ;D

But anyways, go re-read my last post. :P

[teb468]

Originally Posted by aiwahead

Oh btw.. It was the west the nazis invaded ;P Granted, a mistake.. but when you deal with the USSR's territory, um.. thats a BIG mistake ;D

haha, whoops, my bad, i get my directions mixed up i was thinking of the direction the Nazi's invaded. hehehe, dumb me

[JerryLove]

I belive that Haliburton has a constant contract with the US government for supply that has extended (or has been renewed for every conflict) back into the clinton administration, or further than that. I'm not quite sure, as this was admittedly something I was told by my father who worked in the SPR.

A contract for what exactly? How is a "contract without bid in perpituity" better than "contract without bid for Iraq"... you've presented an even worse and more anti-capatalist than the one I believe to be true.

I've heard the exact same thing, and I belive it had to do with the same subcontractor that was charging 45$ for a case of coke, that sub contractor was promptly taken care of and sued for compensation I belive. I know the latter was in an article, I'll see if I can find it.

That would seem to be Haliburton's problem... not the taxpayers... but I'll await a cite.

Actually there are dozens of larger ones, not smaller. The majority of those companies are some of the largest in the world, and its a testiment to their new CFO/CEOs that they are still around. Those that tanked such as Enron and (I belive) Global Crossing were rotten to the core and collapsed.

There was the guy that ran his original company into the ground and then was hired by Commidore (one of the argest computer manufacturers in the world at the time) and ran it into the ground, and then was hired by Atari (also very large and prominant at the time, this was pre-jaguar64) and ran it almost to death. I believe he is still working somewhere.

But we are talking about corporate greed and abuse. Anderson consulting, for whom Cheney was a spokesman and client, proceeded unhindered for *years*... how many more simply haven't collapsed yet?

Speaking of which, that added much to the clinton economy. The basic problem with their so called corruption was exhorbitant figures displayed for their earnings, and THEN the enormous amount of cash they were embezzling. The first wasnt really a crime but of course the second was, and was what they mostly got busted for. However, the first would have inflated the surplus by who knows how much?

Actually, they are both criminal.

I think it'd be intresting to see a chart of the surplus in the clinton admin with the losses from those corporations figured in as well.

It's pretty irrllevent to the issue. The surplus was taxes collected vs. money spent. The government was back in the black. Whether companies were lying about incomes really doesn't matter much as to wheather the government was operating i nthe red or black.

Also, let's remember, it's not a loss of tax revenue that put us in the red (well, the tax refunds didn't help), but a massive increase in spending... that's right, Bush brought us bigger government.

Well no, that would be embezzling. Pork-barreling is technically legal embezzling, granted, but it is still legal and as long as the economy is growing, its growing and thats all that matters to an economist.

I'm a taxpayer and a citizien and a human. Stealing my money, throwing away my job base, and killing my neighbors for profit all factor pretty heavily into my thinking.

Well. Honestly, I can think of no better ways than to simply outspend them. Granted he weakened the dollar, but it worked.

"wait" comes to mind.

There wasnt? Um. Jer.. The market fell more points than it did on black monday in the 20s.. The saving grace was our extravagantly high volume and the required stops that were put in place.

Umm. the number of points in the markets is an order of magnatiude or so above the 20s. The issue is percentages. The "bubble bursting" in the 90s was not nearly as bad as the recession in 87. Further, it was an adjustment to what everyone knew was an over-inflated market. That is to say that, unlike in the 80s when Reagan was helping companies move manufacturing to Mexico, or now when Bush is helping them move to India and China, the dot.com bust was primarily one of companies with no revenue finally loosing stock-value.

Blah that's republican rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. At the very least, the first part. Wars dont do THAT much damage. (especially ones on such small scales) But the wars DID add to it. However, I'd sooner say it was the wars that turned the economy around than otherwise.

WWII did... every other one is a major drain.

I've got a Nov'03 tally (Which is only half-way from start to now) of $166,500,000,000 in direct appropriations. That's enough money to circle the globe 648 times.

Just the millitary costs are 4,000,000,000 per month. That's not counting the money the provisional government is spending, nor the engineering / rebuilding, nor things like the $500,000,000 per year we are spending so that the price of gas in Iraq is $0.05 per gallon.

I think I could come up with something better to do with the half-trillion or so this will end up costing us.

But about the workers thing, I have to dissagree. The current situation is simply placing us at a loss as it has since the 70s.Manufacturing is headed elsewhere.. With cheaper saleries overseas and a weakening dollar (Because of the deficits ensued, The dollar will fall untill we can get some equilibrium.. But that requires time either way. I dont know of much that could possibly strengthen the dollar right now.), it's in the companies' intrest to outsource minor skill jobs to cheaper companies.

There is no reason for the US to offer tax-incentives to do so. Reagan offered it to themanufacturing industry, and the current administration offers it to companies offshoring services.

If there is a single issue that clearly puts me in the Kerry camp, it's the professed intent to offer tax incentives to keep and create jobs in the US.

However with the current tax situation, once there is some equilibrium between the dollar and the current deficit (Which I have recently heard has actually been reduced by something like 200 mil. Tiny, I know, but its a start) jobs aught to start coming back en masse.

So your argument is that we are hemoraging money at a rate higher than any other president in history, but not as badly as Bush was a year ago, so it's good?

You make $50,000 per year. You spend $100,000 per year. You cut your spending to $90,000 per year and think that will make it better?

[aiwahead]

A contract for what exactly? How is a "contract without bid in perpituity" better than "contract without bid for Iraq"... you've presented an even worse and more anti-capatalist than the one I believe to be true.

Yanno, Im not particularily Sure. As far as I know, Haiburton has had a continuing contract with the military to provide excess supply through civilian means in non-combat zones. Though, once again I'm really not sure. I agree, however, that it isnt very much of a capitalist concept.

Personally I would rather see the option bid for, I was merely stating that to my knowledge the reasons Haliburton have the contract as they have for years.

Speaking of which, does the contract ever expire? O.o

That would seem to be Haliburton's problem... not the taxpayers... but I'll await a cite.

Here's the info, im still trying to find the cite that explains what they did about it, but as you can see.. The problems were largely around one sub-contractor. Im not sure if this is even a comprehensive list.

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWeb...061704.pf.html

There was the guy that ran his original company into the ground and then was hired by Commidore (one of the argest computer manufacturers in the world at the time) and ran it into the ground, and then was hired by Atari (also very large and prominant at the time, this was pre-jaguar64) and ran it almost to death. I believe he is still working somewhere.

True, but that was in the 80s, and I would sooner cite that as proof of corruption in the society in general (or amongst CEOs?) than as something dealing with the *current* econ situation. Also, however, Atari at the time was pretty desperate.. After the Vid-crash in 82, they were most certainly NOT very large, they were on their last legs trying to gain a leg-up with Jaguar.. which um. Well it was jaguar.. Hehe.

how many more simply haven't collapsed yet?

Good point. But arguably, if they havent collapsed yet, and after the uproar during 2001-2002 about this in which thousands of people took their cash out of these companies.. If they're still standing, they're doing *something* right.

I belive it IS criminal now to make false profit statements, since this whole fiasco.. But can you give me a cite as to if it was before this?

It's pretty irrllevent to the issue. The surplus was taxes collected vs. money spent. The government was back in the black.

True, it was in the black either way. Semantics, really, but I'd of still liked to see how it would have effected.

Also, let's remember, it's not a loss of tax revenue that put us in the red (well, the tax refunds didn't help), but a massive increase in spending... that's right, Bush brought us bigger government.

And I'd say that has ticked quite a few republicans off, as well as myself to some degree. However, I wonder particularily where all that cash is going. Granted, after 9/11 we simply had to make a larger govermnent.. but what would be intresting would be to see a set of figures to show where that cash went (per new government group)

I'm a taxpayer and a citizien and a human. Stealing my money, throwing away my job base, and killing my neighbors for profit all factor pretty heavily into my thinking.

Eh..? Killing your neighbors for profit? Throwing away your job base? Explain please?

"wait" comes to mind.

And do absolutely nothing while country after country becomes a Soviet Sattelite state? The Warsaw Bloc was growing during the 80s.. was it not?

That is to say that, unlike in the 80s when Reagan was helping companies move manufacturing to Mexico, or now when Bush is helping them move to India and China, the dot.com bust was primarily one of companies with no revenue finally loosing stock-value.

Manufacturing to Mexico? I thought that whole move was during the 90s in the Bush Sr and Clinton Admin under NAFTA? OR.. Was NAFTA a reply to it? [/Confusion]

And yes, that it was. But it was that bust that contributed to the weakening economy as a whole as you know, and by some standards may have even started it (As the market started down in 2000).

WWII did... every other one is a major drain.

I dont think WWII did even, it was the manufacturing base that was revitalized by WWII, but every subsequent war (With the exception of Vietnam?) has shown a rise, at the least in the market.. But then I'm equating the market too much to the greater economy, I think.

That's enough money to circle the globe 648 times.

In what? O.o; (Seriously.)

If there is a single issue that clearly puts me in the Kerry camp, it's the professed intent to offer tax incentives to keep and create jobs in the US.

I'm actually intrested in this, could you give me some sort of cite? I've yet to actually hear what the heck he wants to do on this, only bits and peices that didnt sound too inviting. On either side.

You make $50,000 per year. You spend $100,000 per year. You cut your spending to $90,000 per year and think that will make it better?

Better than if you were spending 100,000/year, yes. My argument in that respect is that there is something being done right, his has only recently come about. Personally I am going to wait and see what happens.