Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: lately alot of bad news out of Iraq

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]here's the difference - what happens in USA is our problem - we have made what happens in IRAQ also our problem - what I want to know is when are we going to get rid of that problem and focus on our own cities and towns??[/QUOTE]

    Great point - lord knows we cannot possibly do both.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,405
    [QUOTE=bitonti]here's the difference - what happens in USA is our problem - we have made what happens in IRAQ also our problem - what I want to know is when are we going to get rid of that problem and focus on our own cities and towns??[/QUOTE]

    You want to use the armed services to help keep crime down in our cities? :huh:

    Somehow I don't see you as a big marshal law fan...

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Piper]You want to use the armed services to help keep crime down in our cities? :huh:

    Somehow I don't see you as a big marshal law fan...[/QUOTE]


    it's simple economics 101 - "guns versus butter"

    when we as a nation are at war we are committing to guns - when we rebuild we are committing to someone else's butter

    it comes down to funding, and looking around I see state and local governments stretched to the limit and the quality of life _decreasing_ in this nation... Inflation is on the horizon due to our insane federal deficits - it's not about bringing the Army back to patrol the streets but at some point every nation has to evaluate it's priorites - right now our priority as a nation is in Iraq, not in increasing American's quality of life.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    [QUOTE=Piper]You want to use the armed services to help keep crime down in our cities? :huh:

    Somehow I don't see you as a big marshal law fan...[/QUOTE]

    How much money have we spent helping Iraq fight Iraq's people to solve Iraq's problems? money that could have been used at home-- given to states, cities put more cops on the street, etc...

    [color=green]$$$$$$$$$$$$[/color]
    ...oh yea we have a social security crisis (Bush's big project right?), a medicare crisis, an overall health care crisis with rising costs, hospitals closing and people claiming bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills (but Bush helped corporate American again but making stricter bankruptcy laws) a border crisis (but Bush doesn't like vigilantes, oh no)... jobs going north, south, east and west...but hey we're rebuilding Iraq.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=R. Tyme]How much money have we spent helping Iraq fight Iraq's people to solve Iraq's problems? money that could have been used at home-- given to states, cities put more cops on the street, etc...

    [color=green]$$$$$$$$$$$$[/color]
    ...oh yea we have a social security crisis (Bush's big project right?), a medicare crisis, an overall health care crisis with rising costs, hospitals closing and people claiming bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills (but Bush helped corporate American again but making stricter bankruptcy laws) a border crisis (but Bush doesn't like vigilantes, oh no)... jobs going north, south, east and west...but hey we're rebuilding Iraq.[/QUOTE]

    You don't think Social Security needs any reform? If so, why? What relationship do you think limitless malpractice suits have with heathcare costs and hospital closings? Since you are so concerned with heathcare costs, I can only assume that you enthusisatically support tort reform, malpractice award limitations and support penalties for those who file frivolous lawsuits, etc. Why is trying to ensure that creditors are actually paid what people owe them considered to be "helping" corporate America? What relationship do you think lax bankruptcy laws had with debt rates? What relationship does captial investment have with economic growth, and therefore overall living standards? Don't you understand that companies pass costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices (or rates), reduced output or both? Are you aware that the unemployment rate is slightly lower now than it was during the TMT bubble years? Are you aware that jobs have been created consistently for many months now? What effect on prices do you think globalization and free trade has?

    Bitonti and others here miss a key point, I think. "Jobs", wealth and expenditures are not finite. The issue is not whether to give this group or that group or this project or that project a bigger piece of the pie, the issue is making the pie [I]itself [/I] bigger. There isn't some fixed, finite amount of jobs in existence such that if we "lose" jobs overseas that they are gone forever. When computers became popular, typewriter manufacturers and sellers and typists faced a rough time, but the overall economy improved. Ditto for milkmen, after some company created refridgerators. If we increase the cost of production - by taking protectionist measures and enforcing things like the minimum wage- companies will simply move overseas, taking jobs and tax revenues with them. If they don't, prices will simply go up, reducing the REAL income of Americans. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Our economy has been growing at a good clip for a while now, creating wealth and raising the standard of living, and creating jobs...mostly due to increased capital expenditures. If debt repayment becomes more reliable, what effect will that likely have on the capital investments of creditor companies? What effect will those expenditures have on job creation?

    Bush doesn't control everything and the sky is not falling, get a grip and think logically.

    Also -Don't act like you and Bitonti would support the Iraq War enthusiastically if the cost were lower. You are against it philosophically - please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you simply think it is a poor capital budgeting decision. If it had cost 10 billion instead of 250 billion you'd still be against it.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-20-2005 at 04:11 PM.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]
    Also -Don't act like you and Bitonti would support the Iraq War enthusiastically if the cost were lower. You are against it philosophically - please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you simply think it is a poor capital budgeting decision. If it had cost 10 billion instead of 250 billion you'd still be against it.[/QUOTE]


    that's completely false - i have from the very beginning questioned the war from many perspectives, among them proper use of funds. It may not have been my only objection but it has been there.

    as for Bush and his economic policies you paint far too pretty a picture - the theme of the next 20 years will be 'cleaning up Bush's mess' - the trade deficit is only getting worse, the federal deficit is insane - both of these together is lowering the value of the dollar, which is triggering inflation. Fiscally speaking the Iraq war is a money pit - no it's not to blame for all of the above but it ain't helping. The Jobs issue is moot for me, as protectionism would be the wrong move -

    but 5ever bottom line Bush is looking too much toward the Middle East and he is neglecting the people at home. There are so many more worthwhile places the gov't could be spending their money then on the fatally flawed theory that a democratic Iraq will end terror. all in all I cannot off the top of my head point to a single piece of legislation signed by this president that had the intention of HELPING the citizens - he helps corporations all the time but CITIZENS can go straight to hell as far as he is concerned.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]that's completely false - i have from the very beginning questioned the war from many perspectives, among them proper use of funds. It may not have been my only objection but it has been there.

    as for Bush and his economic policies you paint far too pretty a picture - the theme of the next 20 years will be 'cleaning up Bush's mess' - the trade deficit is only getting worse, the federal deficit is insane - both of these together is lowering the value of the dollar, which is triggering inflation. Fiscally speaking the Iraq war is a money pit - no it's not to blame for all of the above but it ain't helping.

    5ever bottom line Bush is looking too much toward the Middle East and he is neglecting the people at home. There are so many more worthwhile places the gov't could be spending their money then on the fatally flawed theory that a democratic Iraq will end terror.[/QUOTE]


    No one ever said that a Democratic Iraq would end terrorism. Such transparent straw man tactics are beneath you.


    Why is a trade deficit a bad thing?

    The federal deficit is quite large and yes, I am annoyed by Bush's fiscal irresponsibility - he spends too much. The problem is that the Democrats are worse. Also, as a % of GDP, we've had deficits that are much worse. When people use current, nominal dollar terms, things get inflated and distorted and are easily miunderstood by untrained people/.

    Why is a cheap dollar necessarily a bad thing? Are there other factors you could be missing that contribute to it's current FX rates?

    Are you sure about the causes of inflation? Low unemployment, high economic growth, rastes creeping up...this all contributes, among others. The Fed has to try to regulate and "smooth" out the business cycle, and inflation is dependent on MANY factors, and not your simplistic formula.

    But your general point about Bush's spending is a good and and is a legitimate critique, and one I share.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    but 5ever bottom line Bush is looking too much toward the Middle East and he is neglecting the people at home. There are so many more worthwhile places the gov't could be spending their money then on the fatally flawed theory that a democratic Iraq will end terror. all in all I cannot off the top of my head point to a single piece of legislation signed by this president that had the intention of HELPING the citizens - he helps corporations all the time but CITIZENS can go straight to hell as far as he is concerned.[/QUOTE]

    I just saw this edit. Tax cuts, lengthening and increasing unemployment benefits - these things slipped your mind?

    You don't truly understand economics beyond stage one Matt. Also, the INTENTIONS behind any peice of legislation don't matter at all. Their actual effects matter. What if people pass legislation that is intended to help people, but actually hurts them? What then? Rent control comes to mind. People went nuts about the welfare reform laws pushed and passed by the GOP during Clinton's terms, but they were very, very successful.


    It isn't your fault - most people don't study economics and if it isn't your specialty, that's ok. I certainly don't understand computer science or programming or whatever it is you do. I don't have time to go into things deeply right now.

    Can you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Don't get annoyed by the title - it's not condescending. It's a GREAT book. Then, read Applied Economics; Thinking Beyond Stage One.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-20-2005 at 04:42 PM.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=bitonti] the theme of the next 20 years will be 'cleaning up Bush's mess' [/QUOTE]

    That's will only be true from the viewpoint of the liberals who look to one place for blame... the right. It can't be denied that Clinton had a HUGE hand in where we are today fiscally.

  10. #30
    see bolded comments

    [QUOTE=jets5ever]No one ever said that a Democratic Iraq would end terrorism. Such transparent straw man tactics are beneath you.

    [B]for the price we are paying... both in lives and cash, it damn well better... [/B]

    Why is a trade deficit a bad thing?

    [B]well, lets go straight to the source - the financial times - from Weds April 13 issue, page 7:

    "The US Trade deficit grew by $2.5bn to $61bn, heightening worries over the mounting imbalance in the global economy and causing economists to scale back their US growth forcasts.

    The politcally sensitive bilateral deficit with China rose 67% compared with Feburary last year, reaching $13.9 bn.

    The deficit not only increases the risk of a fall in the dollar and the rise in US interest rates but also exacerbates protectionist pressures within the US congress." [/B]

    The federal deficit is quite large and yes, I am annoyed by Bush's fiscal irresponsibility - he spends too much. The problem is that the Democrats are worse.

    [b]wrong. if there was a democratic President there would be a check to balance out the endless pork stream from congress. I don't buy for a second that democrats are worse when some of this nation's most economically successful periods come when there was a different president than the control of congress.[/b]

    Also, as a % of GDP, we've had deficits that are much worse. When people use current, nominal dollar terms, things get inflated and distorted and are easily miunderstood by untrained people/.

    [b]yeah the only problem is it took the dot.com bubble to climb out of our last deficit, and the next "big thing" isn't on the horizon at all. It will be another half century before something like the dot.com bubble comes along, mark my words. [/b]

    Why is a cheap dollar necessarily a bad thing? Are there other factors you could be missing that contribute to it's current FX rates?

    [b]besides the fact that US businesses operating in a global marketplace are at a disadvantage when they have to rely upon a weak home currency, a fall in the value of the dollar will decrease consumer purchasing power in the long run, and raise prices at home... all which leads to hurting the citizens of this nation, not helping them... like i have stated previously I cannot off the top of my head think of a single piece of legislation signed by Bush explicitly designed to help the american CITIZEN, rather than the american CORPORATION... this "who cares about a cheap dollar" is just another chapter in that tale. Corporations will setup hedge funds to overcome the weakening of the currency, John Q Public has no such luxury. [/b]

    Are you sure about the causes of inflation? Low unemployment, high economic growth, rastes creeping up...this all contributes, among others. The Fed has to try to regulate and "smooth" out the business cycle, and inflation is dependent on MANY factors, and not your simplistic formula.

    [b]you are talking about sympthoms, not the disease - the fed adjusts their rates based on what they want to do as well as what has occured - the "high" growth has been driven by artificially low rates wanting to artificially spur growth - while there are no sure fire 100% explanations for what causes inflation, i would be comfortable in the statement that the factors I listed (deficits, weakening dollar, loss of CPP) are more to do with than the more superficial factors you listed - not meaning that statement as a personal attack but low unemployment and high growth can be directly linked to artificially low rates, which Bush leaned on Greenspan to keep this way in part to assure that Junior Bush did not go down the same path as his father as a 1 term President... [/b]

    But your general point about Bush's spending is a good and and is a legitimate critique, and one I share.

    [b]like i said before, whoever is in charge, the theme of the next two decades (or more) will be "cleaning up Bush's mess" - while he avoided disaster in the first term through magic and Fed voodoo, these nasty chickens will come home to roost before 2008 - you know it and I know it... [/b]
    [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by bitonti; 04-20-2005 at 04:57 PM.

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Why is a cheap dollar necessarily a bad thing? Are there other factors you could be missing that contribute to it's current FX rates?
    [/QUOTE]

    You should direct that question to CBTNY. He has stated repeatedly that G.Soros is a Anti-American Financial Terrorist SPECIFICALLY because he sold some of his stake of U.S. Dollars, with the (CBTNY stated) goal of lowering the value of the dollar.

    So I would ask HIM why it is a bad thing. He seems to know such things.

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]You don't think Social Security needs any reform? If so, why? What relationship do you think limitless malpractice suits have with heathcare costs and hospital closings? Since you are so concerned with heathcare costs, I can only assume that you enthusisatically support tort reform, malpractice award limitations and support penalties for those who file frivolous lawsuits, etc. Why is trying to ensure that .........creditors are actually paid what people owe them considered to be "helping" corporate America? What relationship do you think lax .........bankruptcy laws had with .........debt rates? What relationship does captial investment have with economic growth, and therefore overall living standards? Don't you understand that companies pass costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices (or rates), reduced output or both? Are you aware that the unemployment rate is slightly lower now than it was during the TMT bubble years? Are you aware that jobs have been created consistently for many months now? What effect on prices do you think globalization and free trade has?

    Bitonti and others here miss a key point, I think. "Jobs", wealth and expenditures are not finite. The issue is not whether to give this group or that group or this project or that project a bigger piece of the pie, the issue is making the pie [i]itself [/i]bigger. There isn't some fixed, finite amount of jobs in existence such that if we "lose" jobs overseas that they are gone forever. When computers became popular, typewriter manufacturers and sellers and typists faced a rough time, but the overall economy improved. Ditto for milkmen, after some company created refridgerators. If we increase the cost of production - by taking protectionist measures and enforcing things like the minimum wage- companies will simply move overseas, taking jobs and tax revenues with them. If they don't, prices will simply go up, reducing the REAL income of Americans. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Our economy has been growing at a good clip for a while now, creating wealth and raising the standard of living, and creating jobs...mostly due to increased capital expenditures. If debt repayment becomes more reliable, what effect will that likely have on the capital investments of creditor companies? What effect will those expenditures have on job creation?

    Bush doesn't control everything and the sky is not falling, get a grip and think logically.

    Also -Don't act like you and Bitonti would support the Iraq War enthusiastically if the cost were lower. You are against it philosophically - please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you simply think it is a poor capital budgeting decision. If it had cost 10 billion instead of 250 billion you'd still be against it.[/QUOTE]

    I work in IT for a hospital right now. I've always work in IT previously for IBM, my sister still works there. IBM help desk jobs have gone overseas to India as have other companies' tech jobs. The lastest news is that IBM's hardware will now be built in China. I highly doubt IBM is alone in sending jobs outside of the U.S.

    In my local area alone, 2 long-standing hospitals have recently closed and mine is all over the local news to try and save. I went to one of the healthcare rallys in Albany (hospitals, nursing homes, rehabs, etc...represented) and there were hundreds there to get Pataki's attention on how budget cuts; reimbursement cuts are hurting the health care institutions. I've already been laid off twice and seen many others laid off around me.

    I just read an article and it's been on the news that a lot of people who file for bankruptcy have filed it because a major health care crisis occurred in the family and the family (insurance covered or not) could not afford the high hospital bills on top of other debts. Creditors are nothing more than legal loansharks-- they raise the interest rate anywhere to 25% and higher, and on top of it charge large late fee penalties. I don't see anyone putting a cap on this or questioning creditor policies (?) There are 2 sides to everything.

    The sky may not be falling, but everything is not coming up roses either. And I'll ignore your parroting, get a grip and insulting intelligence comments.

    [QUOTE]
    Also -Don't act like you and Bitonti would support the Iraq War enthusiastically if the cost were lower. You are against it philosophically - please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you simply think it is a poor capital budgeting decision. If it had cost 10 billion instead of 250 billion you'd still be against it
    [/QUOTE]

    Pleeze. Don't make it sound like the money spent was never one of the issues in being against this war. Wasted money, wasted lives to.....
    rebuild Iraq whoppeee!!!! and we're no safer against terrorism.
    Last edited by R. Tyme; 04-20-2005 at 06:32 PM.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,405
    [QUOTE=R. Tyme]Pleeze. Don't make it sound like the money spent was never one of the issues in being against this war. Wasted money, wasted lives to.....
    rebuild Iraq whoppeee!!!! and we're no safer against terrorism.[/QUOTE]

    How many buildings have come down lately?

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    [QUOTE=Piper]How many buildings have come down lately?[/QUOTE]

    None Piper, you're right but...
    Security experts (CIA, FBI) do not feel we are free from future terrorist attacks. I'm not hearing them say this.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,405
    [QUOTE=R. Tyme]None Piper, you're right but...
    Security experts (CIA, FBI) do not feel we are free from future terrorist attacks. I'm not hearing them say this.[/QUOTE]

    Free? No. But I believe that we are safer now than two years ago.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    [QUOTE=Piper]Free? No. But I believe that we are safer now than two years ago.[/QUOTE]

    free/safer....words

    but wait a sec

    yea I would hope that after 9-11 we would beef up our security in airports, buildings, wake NORAD up, etc to be safer...even without invading Iraq

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=bitonti]it's simple economics 101 - "guns versus butter"

    [/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://www.realcomputerguy.com/images/peabody.jpg[/IMG]

  18. #38
    did you guys see this??
    [QUOTE]
    [B]Iraqi assembly member assassinated[/B]
    Prime minister-designate says he has proposed a new government
    Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Posted: 11:12 AM EDT (1512 GMT)


    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's transitional National Assembly suffered a difficult setback Wednesday when gunmen shot and killed a lawmaker on her doorstep -- the first assembly member assassinated since the assembly was voted into power on January 30.

    Lamee'a Abd Khidawi, a member of outgoing interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's legislative bloc, was shot to death when she answered the door to her house, Baghdad emergency police said. No one has yet claimed responsibility.

    The slaying follows recent unsuccessful assassination attempts on two other assembly members -- Mish'an al-Jabouri, near Tikrit; and Allawi, in Baghdad.

    There is not a clear procedure to fill a vacant National Assembly seat.

    The news came a short time before Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Iraq's prime minister-designate, told reporters he has proposed a new government and the assembly will vote on it Thursday.

    Al-Jaafari said that the "character of the government" will reflect the country's diversity. At least seven of the new government positions will be going to women, he said.

    The new government will reflect the country's geographic, religious, national and political differences, he said.

    Al-Jaafari said the step will help erase the sins of the past, bring stability and joy to the nation's future, and bring hope to Iraqis.

    "We want to return the smiles to the faces of the children," he said.

    Officials at President Jalal Talabani's office said they had yet to receive the list, but expected it to arrive soon.

    Talabani must approve the list before the 275-member assembly votes on the nominees. (Interactive: Iraqi government organizational chart)

    Politicians in this diverse country have had difficulty finding common ground in the three months since 8 million Iraqis went to the polls.

    Lawmakers, in jockeying for power, have been trying to satisfy the needs of their supporters and other groups who want to be represented in important government positions.

    The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance came out on top in the January elections. The Kurdish bloc and interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's list had strong showings as well.

    Talabani is a Kurd and al-Jaafari is a Shiite.[/QUOTE]

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    did you see this:

    [QUOTE]Al-Zarqawi narrowly escapes capture: reports
    Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:31:20 EDT
    CBC News
    WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq say they just missed capturing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an al-Qaeda-linked group blamed for a series of violent attacks, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday.

    In February, American troops were in place to capture the Jordanian-born militant, after being reportedly tipped off that he was travelling for a meeting in Ramadi, west of Fallujah.


    An undated photo of Ahmed al-Kalaylah, also known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (AP File Photo)

    Troops pulled over the truck al-Zarqawi was believed to be in, but he was not inside. The official told ABC News that al-Zarqawi apparently jumped out of the truck when it passed beneath an overpass and hid there before escaping.

    [B]
    Although al-Zarqawi escaped, the military found his laptop computer. CNN, citing sources, reported it contained "a treasure trove of information," including direct connections to Osama bin Laden. [/B]

    NBC reported that among the items seized with the laptop were several small plug-in hard drives. Numerous pictures of al-Zarqawi were found in the computer's ''My Pictures'' file, NBC said.

    U.S forces also recovered $104,000 US.

    Al-Zarqawi is believed to be behind a series of deadly attacks, abductions and beheadings in Iraq that have killed hundreds. The U.S. has offered a $25-million US reward for al-Zarqawi's capture or killing.

    [/QUOTE]

    ohh...that's right- you are only interested in bad news

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]did you see this:



    ohh...that's right- you are only interested in bad news[/QUOTE]


    hey CBNY when you are posting that the USA ALMOST captured someone as "good news" maybe it's time to re-evaluate expectations. Have things really gotten so bad that Almost capturing someone is hailed as a moral victory?

    put it another way If we were on a manhunt for someone and we almost captured them would you think that was good news or bad news?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us