And why was it that Bush held a cabinet meeting on the invasion of Iraq ten days after he first took office in 2001? And why was it that part of the meeting concerned the oil that Iraq had?
And why was it that Bush's former biographer stated that Bush told him that he wanted to be a war president, because war presidents are always more popular?
And who was it that elected Bush? Twice?
Just because people think the market 'calls for it' doesn't make it smart. Not at all. That's the stuff of which gluts are made.
And if you cannot prove that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship but are just making it up...what does that make you?
PROVE that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship!
By saying you're the ones sounding desperate?
Oh and...was I complaining? Nope, don't think so.
I'm asking you to find one instance where I defend Bergdahl.
So let me guess....it's all Bush's fault?
Actually gluts are made when govt run production requires production at higher levels than consumption. Ask the USSR how that turned out.
I notice that you've walked away from this with tail tucked.
Nice.
FYI, gluts normally have nothing to do with government. Try looking up gluts that have occurred in the past and see how much governments didn't have to do with them. Gluts are those situations when supply is much greater than demand, and occur when there is significant overproduction or significant decrease in demand. Most gluts are minor in the macroeconomic view (though some are certainly not - see the real estate gluts caused by the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession") and there's many different causes of overproduction or decrease in demand, and sometimes those are indeed the fault of the government...but more often than not, it's simply a case of overproduction.
In the case of oil, however, a glut due to overproduction would not be a good thing at all. I despise Big Oil, but if we allow that to happen which would cause the price of oil to nosedive even temporarily, that kind of macroeconomic shock can cause significant instability in the market...and not the good kind of instability.
And FYI, we aren't the USSR. I know that comes as a shock to you....
You're wrong.....AGAIN.
It might help if you stopped reading Keynes, or not.
Consumers as a share of GNP rose steadily from 1920 to 1930.
The idea that the Great Depression was caused by over production or even Stock market speculation doesn't wash with the fact that there was a explosion of consumer activity and Market participation from 1920 to 1930.
American industry exploded during the twenties with electric utilities, radios and automobiles.
The American middle-class also grew at a unprecedented rate as more and more people rose out of poverty.
The invasion of Iraq? Yes, it was - that was his plan all along, even before he got elected the first time. He wanted to do what daddy wouldn't do.
I know that sounds crude...but it's true. And so many of us - myself included at the time - got sucked into believing him.
FYI, gluts normally have nothing to do with government. Try looking up gluts that have occurred in the past and see how much governments didn't have to do with them. Gluts are those situations when supply is much greater than demand, and occur when there is significant overproduction or significant decrease in demand. Most gluts are minor in the macroeconomic view (though some are certainly not - see the real estate gluts caused by the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession") and there's many different causes of overproduction or decrease in demand, and sometimes those are indeed the fault of the government...but more often than not, it's simply a case of overproduction.
In the case of oil, however, a glut due to overproduction would not be a good thing at all. I despise Big Oil, but if we allow that to happen which would cause the price of oil to nosedive even temporarily, that kind of macroeconomic shock can cause significant instability in the market...and not the good kind of instability.
And FYI, we aren't the USSR. I know that comes as a shock to you....
Um, did you show where he renounced his citizenship? Maybe you did, and I could well have missed it. I know this might sound strange, but I do have a life away from this forum. I was up to 0345 this morning cranking out a research paper. It wasn't fun.
But anyway, did you show where he renounced his citizenship?
Wow, that guy must have been a genius...I mean, fooling all you smaht folk n all.
Its a well-known phenomenon that in times of real crisis, people fall into line with the leader - partisan bickering is strongly diminished.
Think about it this way: are Germans an intelligent, well-educated people? Generally speaking, yes. So how did Hitler fool them? Goering said it in the clearest way I can imagine:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
And he's absolutely right. Add to that the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11...and most of us (including me) were suddenly ready to believe almost anything we were told.
Were we told we were under attack? Check.
Were the peacemakers denounced and accused of exposing the country to danger? Check.
And so support for the unprovoked invasion was assured.
Yes, I did. You conveniently...missed...it.
The invasion was far from unprovoked, bad timing and faulty intelligence aside. But, it would seem that the dunce from Texas is not only really smaht, but apparently, quite charismatic, no?
Perhaps you should ask that question of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry seeing as how both of them endorsed and voted for the invasion (along with numerous other democrats)Really? Where was the clear and present danger that Iraq posed to America? Especially since they were NOT allied with al-Qaeda?
Perhaps you should ask that question of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry seeing as how both of them endorsed and voted for the invasion (along with numerous other democrats)
I love your fascist quote. Or is it socialist?:The invasion of Iraq? Yes, it was - that was his plan all along, even before he got elected the first time. He wanted to do what daddy wouldn't do.
I know that sounds crude...but it's true. And so many of us - myself included at the time - got sucked into believing him.
Did you not see Goering's quote?
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
And if you'd look it up, you'd find that our CONGRESS - including Hillary and Kerry - were fed faulty intel...intel that the Bush admin KNEW was questionable (though they did not know for sure that it was false).
He did what FDR did only he did it better than FDR. They had many programs in parallel. Both loved their national socialism.Its a well-known phenomenon that in times of real crisis, people fall into line with the leader - partisan bickering is strongly diminished.
Think about it this way: are Germans an intelligent, well-educated people? Generally speaking, yes. So how did Hitler fool them? Goering said it in the clearest way I can imagine:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
And he's absolutely right. Add to that the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11...and most of us (including me) were suddenly ready to believe almost anything we were told.
Were we told we were under attack? Check.
Were the peacemakers denounced and accused of exposing the country to danger? Check.
And so support for the unprovoked invasion was assured.
If he is well enough, maybe he can be assigned the task of getting those 5 back.
And if you'd look it up, you'd find that our CONGRESS - including Hillary and Kerry - were fed faulty intel...intel that the Bush admin KNEW was questionable (though they did not know for sure that it was false).
Every intelligence agency in the Western world agreed with the assessment because Saddam was, as it turns out, faking a wmd program to keep the Iranian regime at bay.
But you'll ignore that, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?