First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Answer to American Economic Crisis
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10 , edited 6/30/10


re-elect Bush and your wishes would be easier

just think of another reason why you will attack... weapon of mass destruction is out. Maybe try, " CIA reports that Bin Landen is being hidden by the European Union"
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Well if we cut taxes, and cut spending, hacked budgets, deregulated businesses(temporairly), that would create jobs, and creating jobs is the key way to recover the economy.

Alternatively doing the opposite (increasing taxes and spending and regulations) will kill jobs. Which will just worsen the economy.


Which is easier, looting or fiscal responsibility? You decide.


Well looting is easier of course, and much more fun. But it won't help create jobs for people.


Soldiery is one of the oldest jobs in the world, I'll have you know, and it will give our woman back at home a place outside the house, that is to say, in the factory, making war-machinery. Increase in production mean increase in wage, and thus, increase in purchase, therefore, increase in demand, and more jobs!

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

1. Bush's tax cuts will put us further into debt because they will not pay for themselves, which is what he and his administration anticipated, according to some studies: http://www.nysun.com/business/bush-tax-cuts-increased-tax-base-study-says/84823/

We also aren't getting that "trickle down" effect that is supposed to result from tax cuts for the rich. So cutting taxes is not the answer.


Tax cuts on the average man, means he has more money(cause that money isn't going to taxes duh), and thus more money to spend on stuff, we need to get the people spending money on stuff to get the economy going again. Do this by creating jobs and cutting taxes.


2. Cutting spending, on the other hand, is probably the best answer. The problem there is that no one wants to cut the part of the budget that severely needs to be cut: military spending. We have the most over-inflated defense budget in the world, and we are in two wars for no reason other than to put money into the pockets of military contractors (other corporations that are controlling this country) and military officials. There's also too much money going into bank-bailouts. Instead of cutting that parts of the budget that are only benefiting corporations, they are trying to cut the parts that are beneficial to citizens, which is social security: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPwTM8uTRfg&playnext_from=TL&videos=nazlajQInio


I think the military has around 500 billion dollars to play with. And military contractors exist because the government doesn't actually build anything itself. The government gets everything manufactured for it by private industry.


3. Certain businesses aren't regulated enough, which is part of what contributed to the recession and will continue to play a factor in later recessions, on top of making the deficit even bigger and wasting more of our tax money. It has created jobs on Wall street, but they are just refilling the positions that led to the collapse in the first place It's all for the sake of benefiting the banking industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3WWAItqVbQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=rvyB-imYfA4


The recession was caused by congress forcing the banks to give home loans to people who had no chance of paying it back(people who didn't make enough money to make the mortage). So they lost their houses, and it caused the housing bubble(all those houses are now owned by the bank), which caused the recession. (Cause for some reason congress decided that a house is a right and not something you have to earn by working).

Any be deregulating some businesses you create jobs. Jobs need to be created to fix this economic mess the government caused.

Basic Reaganomics lol

Cut government spending.
Cut taxes on the average man.
Cut inflation.
Cut regulation of the economy.

All that stuff creates jobs. Jobs are good, we need jobs. Reaganomics created some 20 million jobs lol.

Obamanomics the polar opposite of Reaganomics has killed jobs, killed about 8 million of them, and created none.
Obamanomics = spend spend spend, increase taxes, and government control <--- Kills jobs


We had a chance to change all of this during the recent financial reform bill, but Obama and certain Democrats were too weak to push for real reform, and instead gave into the demands of Republicans and corporations under the guise of bipartisanship.


The republicans just basically want the spending to stop(leik the rest of all americans). The dem's have no intention of stopping spending tho. They haven't even passed a budget yet lol.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10 , edited 6/30/10

Allhailodin wrote:

Tax cuts on the average man, means he has more money(cause that money isn't going to taxes duh), and thus more money to spend on stuff, we need to get the people spending money on stuff to get the economy going again. Do this by creating jobs and cutting taxes.


Why do you think a lack of spending is our main problem? I'd prefer sources rather than speculation.

Also, you do realize that government spending has the exact same effect, right? The money they spend goes to their employees, many who are "average men," and it goes to private companies (corporations) that they use goods and services from. If citizens are given more income then it will most likely go to the same places, the banks and various corporations. It would also improve small businesses, but our economy isn't dependent on them, it's dependent on corporations and banks.



I think the military has around 500 billion dollars to play with. And military contractors exist because the government doesn't actually build anything itself. The government gets everything manufactured for it by private industry.


More like $663 billion (in the proposed budget): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Which makes up almost 1/5 of total spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending

When taking into consideration the military budget of the rest of the world, it is way over-inflated and there is room to cut it down: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

But no one wants to because military contractors make too much money off of it, and they are another set of corporations controlling the country.



The recession was caused by congress forcing the banks to give home loans to people who had no chance of paying it back(people who didn't make enough money to make the mortage). So they lost their houses, and it caused the housing bubble(all those houses are now owned by the bank), which caused the recession. (Cause for some reason congress decided that a house is a right and not something you have to earn by working).


That was one of the many causes, depending on who you talk to. It wasn't only the government's fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

Another one of the causes was, in layman's terms, banks gambling with our money. They were allowed to do this because the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented banks from engaging in such risky gambling, was repealed by Clinton, which is an act of deregulation. I singled this one out because it was the reason behind the bailouts, and since the recent financial reform bill didn't bring any real reform, banks will begin to engage in this practice again and come asking for another bailout when they lose their bets.



Any be deregulating some businesses you create jobs.


Which regulations should we remove to create jobs?


Jobs need to be created to fix this economic mess the government caused.


In theory yes, but in reality more jobs=more tax money to escalate the war and bail out banks.


Basic Reaganomics lol

Cut government spending.
Cut taxes on the average man.
Cut inflation.
Cut regulation of the economy.

All that stuff creates jobs. Jobs are good, we need jobs. Reaganomics created some 20 million jobs lol.


1. Cutting spending does reduce the deficit, but according to your simplified model of how our economy works, it also hurts the economy because less money is being spent.
2. Again, there's no guarantee that that money will even be spent, and if it is there is no way to predict (as far as I know) how much of that will actually boost the economy vs. how much will go straight to corporations that haven't been hurt all that badly by the recession. Plus no one will ever cut taxes on average citizens without cutting taxes on the wealthy classes and corporations as well, because they would receive too much backlash from corps.
3. Reducing inflation is always a good thing as far as I know.
4. As I've demonstrated, deregulation doesn't always help. I've yet to hear from you or anyone else exactly which regulations are hindering our economy.

Reaganomics has it's benefits and it's drawbacks, and borrowing aspects of it would help a lot, mainly cutting military spending and reducing inflation. But the main downfall of Reaganomics is that it increased the national deficit, which is the last thing we need right now. So IMO we should adopt part of his model but not all of it, we need to regulate banks to keep them from gambling with our money, we need to split up the banks so that they aren't "too big to fail," and we need to regulate corporations to keep them from using lobbyists to bid on politicians. I honestly can't say anything about raising or reducing federal taxes, since I don't know enough about them, but I know for sure that tax money shouldn't be used to fix the mistakes of the banks, or spent on trivial things like portraits of government officials: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/donald-rumsfelds-nearly-5_n_628480.html

Then again I guess my opinion doesn't mean much since I admittedly don't feel like I know enough about economics to make an informed opinion.


Obamanomics the polar opposite of Reaganomics has killed jobs, killed about 8 million of them, and created none.
Obamanomics = spend spend spend, increase taxes, and government control <--- Kills jobs


The link about the 2010 budget shows that much of "Obamanomics" is just a continuation of Bush's policies. So he does deserve blame for continuing failed policies, but he is not the only cause. Only naive conservatives who Faux News all day think that Obama is the exact opposite of Regan and other conservatives. I hope you're not one of them.



The republicans just basically want the spending to stop(leik the rest of all americans).

Except on bank bailouts and military spending, which they are constantly trying to increase.

Also, if the majority of Americans want the same thing as Republicans, why did Obama get elected? And since when do the majority of Americans know enough about politics to vote based on the policies and the past actions of the candidates, rather than superficial details like whether they are Republican or Democrat? If they were that educated and not brainwashed into voting based on which party the candidates belong to, then they would've voted for the libertarian candidate Ron Paul.


The dem's have no intention of stopping spending tho. They haven't even passed a budget yet lol.


According to the link about the 2010 federal budget, it has passed. If that source is wrong, then it isn't just the Democrat's fault, since the budget has to be approved by a certain number of House Reps and Senators, and a certain number of those have to be Republicans (assuming all of the Democrats vote yes, which isn't likely).

Your party bias is starting to show. Any person who knows what is really going on in this country will know that both of the two main parties are the source of all our problems, because they are both working together behind the scenes towards the same goal: filling the pockets of corporations and banks. Filling those pockets also fills the pockets of politicians covering their asses, most of which are Democrats and Republicans, Obama included.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10
Actually, having a weak currency CAN be an advantage if you are an exporting nation. It makes your goods and services discounted in a way that usually can't be countered by tariffs and other protectionist measures.

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Actually, having a weak currency CAN be an advantage if you are an exporting nation. It makes your goods and services discounted in a way that usually can't be countered by tariffs and other protectionist measures.



Last I heard, the U.S imports much more than it exports, hence our trade deficit. But I don't know the current state of that situation.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Actually, having a weak currency CAN be an advantage if you are an exporting nation. It makes your goods and services discounted in a way that usually can't be countered by tariffs and other protectionist measures.



Last I heard, the U.S imports much more than it exports, hence our trade deficit. But I don't know the current state of that situation.


Yes and Canada is one of the countries you import from.
as for the situation... it's bad. There are whole container ships that return to china and other places east EMPTY because there's nothing being bought that's worth shipping.



10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

Why do you think a lack of spending is our main problem? I'd prefer sources rather than speculation.

Also, you do realize that government spending has the exact same effect, right? The money they spend goes to their employees, many who are "average men," and it goes to private companies (corporations) that they use goods and services from. If citizens are given more income then it will most likely go to the same places, the banks and various corporations. It would also improve small businesses, but our economy isn't dependent on them, it's dependent on corporations and banks.


We need to create private sector jobs, create more small businesses. Government spending doesn't accomplish that. Just wastes money on unneeded things like smoking programs and other stuff.

More small businesses = good. The more the better.


More like $663 billion (in the proposed budget): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Which makes up almost 1/5 of total spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#Total_spending

When taking into consideration the military budget of the rest of the world, it is way over-inflated and there is room to cut it down: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

But no one wants to because military contractors make too much money off of it, and they are another set of corporations controlling the country.


663 billion $'s eh, so I wasn't that far off. But how much is too much ?


That was one of the many causes, depending on who you talk to. It wasn't only the government's fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

Another one of the causes was, in layman's terms, banks gambling with our money. They were allowed to do this because the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented banks from engaging in such risky gambling, was repealed by Clinton, which is an act of deregulation. I singled this one out because it was the reason behind the bailouts, and since the recent financial reform bill didn't bring any real reform, banks will begin to engage in this practice again and come asking for another bailout when they lose their bets.


Banks shouldn't be allowed to do that, I agree. The banks should have been allowed to fail too. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Should have just let them implode, only problem I see with that is the people who have money in those banks would lose it all, but a bank account is insured up to 250,000$ by the feds. But some people might have more than that. Some people could have had up to several million dollars.



Which regulations should we remove to create jobs?


The ones on small businesses. The less regulations on small businesses the more appealing they are to people to start one.


In theory yes, but in reality more jobs=more tax money to escalate the war and bail out banks.


Meh, I don't really care about spending money on wars, wars are unavoidable, and like everything else except air, it costs money. But like I already said, banks shouldn't have been bailed out with tax payer money.



1. Cutting spending does reduce the deficit, but according to your simplified model of how our economy works, it also hurts the economy because less money is being spent.
2. Again, there's no guarantee that that money will even be spent, and if it is there is no way to predict (as far as I know) how much of that will actually boost the economy vs. how much will go straight to corporations that haven't been hurt all that badly by the recession. Plus no one will ever cut taxes on average citizens without cutting taxes on the wealthy classes and corporations as well, because they would receive too much backlash from corps.
3. Reducing inflation is always a good thing as far as I know.
4. As I've demonstrated, deregulation doesn't always help. I've yet to hear from you or anyone else exactly which regulations are hindering our economy.

Reaganomics has it's benefits and it's drawbacks, and borrowing aspects of it would help a lot, mainly cutting military spending and reducing inflation. But the main downfall of Reaganomics is that it increased the national deficit, which is the last thing we need right now. So IMO we should adopt part of his model but not all of it, we need to regulate banks to keep them from gambling with our money, we need to split up the banks so that they aren't "too big to fail," and we need to regulate corporations to keep them from using lobbyists to bid on politicians. I honestly can't say anything about raising or reducing federal taxes, since I don't know enough about them, but I know for sure that tax money shouldn't be used to fix the mistakes of the banks, or spent on trivial things like portraits of government officials: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/donald-rumsfelds-nearly-5_n_628480.html

Then again I guess my opinion doesn't mean much since I admittedly don't feel like I know enough about economics to make an informed opinion.


You mean split up in the same manner that the government forced I think the name was Standard Oil to split up and sell ?

The oil manopoly that the rockefellers owned.

Splitting big banks into smaller banks could work. But that would probably just wind up creating more big banks 20 years from now.


The link about the 2010 budget shows that much of "Obamanomics" is just a continuation of Bush's policies. So he does deserve blame for continuing failed policies, but he is not the only cause. Only naive conservatives who Faux News all day think that Obama is the exact opposite of Regan and other conservatives. I hope you're not one of them.


Obama deserves the blame for continuing failed policies that don't work, yes.


Also, if the majority of Americans want the same thing as Republicans, why did Obama get elected? And since when do the majority of Americans know enough about politics to vote based on the policies and the past actions of the candidates, rather than superficial details like whether they are Republican or Democrat? If they were that educated and not brainwashed into voting based on which party the candidates belong to, then they would've voted for the libertarian candidate Ron Paul.


Because Americans are stupid and Obama was shiny and sparkly like that gay vampire from twilight. Same concept. People are suckers for people who are charismatic.


According to the link about the 2010 federal budget, it has passed. If that source is wrong, then it isn't just the Democrat's fault, since the budget has to be approved by a certain number of House Reps and Senators, and a certain number of those have to be Republicans (assuming all of the Democrats vote yes, which isn't likely).


Well that's news to me. That a budget passed.


Your party bias is starting to show. Any person who knows what is really going on in this country will know that both of the two main parties are the source of all our problems, because they are both working together behind the scenes towards the same goal: filling the pockets of corporations and banks. Filling those pockets also fills the pockets of politicians covering their asses, most of which are Democrats and Republicans, Obama included.


You know, I hear a lot about that, but you know what I don't hear a lot of - solutions. All I keep hearing is how evil corporations are, but as of now, I have heard like no solutions to that problem. So all I've heard is complaining.

Besides like I've already said, without corporations who's going to develop && manufacture stuff on a mass scale ? Not like you can just get rid of them. Or there's no more computers, or medicines && medical technology, and such. So if you see such a problem with it, what do you propose ?

The way I view it is, if you don't like the way things are, do something about it, take some action or something. But complaining isn't going to accomplish much.

And I'm not affiliated with any parties, I agree with stuff from all 3 sides. (Dem, Lib, && Rep).

I have a pretty good idea of what goes on in this country, enough to form a picture yes, maybe not a 1080i picture, but a picture nontheless, but to be honest, I'm not really too interested in those things. Its just more human corruption, and lol, that's nothing new.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/30/10 , edited 6/30/10
I don't think it'll be easier to looting other countries than regulating your own economy system. Even American's soldier in war in developing countries are not that successful, 2 developing countries in middle-east. Moreover with developed nations in rich lands with solid military and more than 5 nations you're going war with. As the response, the international community will not agree and possibly will attack America too.

Then America will be attacked from South by America latin nations to get away from imperialism. Russia and China will form alliance to attack from west, possibly with Japan, as they want US base to get removed as well. While America invading European with middle-east countries supporting them to defending their territory in the north as well. It's great loss then profit. Image is far more important than money after all.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/30/10 , edited 6/30/10
Is the OP being serious? So we should destroy and plunder Europe because of our fiscal irresponsibility? Just vote for conservative Republicans in 2010 and 2012 who will advocate and push for fiscal responsibility. We need people who's core goal is to shrink government and spending and now grow it. Also, Europe isn't in a good financial state either (maybe even worse than us).
Posted 7/1/10 , edited 7/1/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

I don't think it'll be easier to looting other countries than regulating your own economy system. Even American's soldier in war in developing countries are not that successful, 2 developing countries in middle-east. Moreover with developed nations in rich lands with solid military and more than 5 nations you're going war with. As the response, the international community will not agree and possibly will attack America too.

Then America will be attacked from South by America latin nations to get away from imperialism. Russia and China will form alliance to attack from west, possibly with Japan, as they want US base to get removed as well. While America invading European with middle-east countries supporting them to defending their territory in the north as well. It's great loss then profit. Image is far more important than money after all.


You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

- Isoroku Yamamoto

In any ways, shouldn't America do as what Russia is doing? Sell Arms? Russian economy had gone boom because of it.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/1/10

Allhailodin wrote:


We need to create private sector jobs, create more small businesses. Government spending doesn't accomplish that. Just wastes money on unneeded things like smoking programs and other stuff.

More small businesses = good. The more the better.


Government spending does create jobs: Spending on education = more money to hire teachers= more jobs

Spending money on construction projects= more money for construction contractors= more money to hire construction workers= more jobs

Spending money on farming subsidies= more crops produced= more people needed to transport them= more jobs

Spending money on public hospitals= more money to hire doctors and nurses= more jobs

So unless you think education, construction, farming crops, and health care are all unneeded things, responsible government spending does the exact same thing as people spending money on small businesses.


663 billion $'s eh, so I wasn't that far off. But how much is too much ?


If you're a human being with a shred of empathy and common sense within you, then you can realize that we are in two pointless wars and have bases scattered all over the world for no reason other to protect corporate interests overseas and to make money for military contractors, so $663 billion is way too much. On the other hand, if you're a war-mongering conservative who only cares about making money for those corporations that benefit from the wars, then there is no such thing as too much.

It's funny how you're willing to ask that question about military spending, but you're 100% sure that government spending on everything else is way too much and unnecessary.



The ones on small businesses. The less regulations on small businesses the more appealing they are to people to start one.


All of them? Should we get rid of child labor laws? Minimum wage? Safety regulations? Every business needs some sort of regulation, especially those 3 I listed, but I've yet to hear from anyone exactly which regulations they feel are unnecessary. Everyone just argues from the flawed black-and-white idealogical perspective that "regulations are bad, period." Generalized statements like that don't bring about any solutions.


Meh, I don't really care about spending money on wars, wars are unavoidable


This war is definitely avoidable, at the very least it needs to be scaled down. If you truly are against big government and high taxes, then you would be against the war we are in right now, because it is a prime example of irresponsible government spending and government interference in people's lives. You should care because no war= lower taxes, which is what you want, right?


Splitting big banks into smaller banks could work. But that would probably just wind up creating more big banks 20 years from now.


Not if there is legislation put into place that prevents them from becoming "too big to fail." Any fiscally responsible person would realize that it is not wise for an economy to be dependent on one industry, let alone a few companies, but currently the biggest 4 banks make 56% of our national revenue (heard it in a news report a few days ago, but I can't access the archives, so I don't blame you if you don't take my word for it). Since they control half of our economy, they basically control the country, which is why they need to be split up.




You know, I hear a lot about that, but you know what I don't hear a lot of - solutions. All I keep hearing is how evil corporations are, but as of now, I have heard like no solutions to that problem. So all I've heard is complaining.


One solution is campaign finance reform. The reason why so many politicians are giving in to corporate interests is because they fund the majority of their campaign expenses (70% last I heard, can't find a source). Earlier this year the Supreme Court repealed the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which was a law that limited how much corporations and unions could donate to political campaigns. Now there is no restriction on how much they can donate, so current candidates for the 2010 elections and incumbents are doing everything they can to protect corporate interests to make sure they get a lot of money.

Another thing is we need to regulate the practice of lobbying, which is another way politicians make money off of corporate interest. Obama has passed some executive orders that restrict their influence, but it either hasn't been long enough to see the effects or it doesn't have any significant effect at all.

Another solution is something you will probably oppose, which is regulation of banks. We should follow Canada's model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nerr88t41PA&playnext_from=TL&videos=rNvqhXTjIzY

If you refuse to watch the video, it basically explains how Canada wasn't affected too badly by the recession, and how they are recovering and prospering largely due to the strict regulation of their banks.

I've said multiple times before that reducing corporate influence over politics is the solution. So you either didn't really read my posts or you were too busy complaining that taxes are too high to pay attention.


Besides like I've already said, without corporations who's going to develop && manufacture stuff on a mass scale ? Not like you can just get rid of them. Or there's no more computers, or medicines && medical technology, and such. So if you see such a problem with it, what do you propose ?


No one is against business or corporations, we are against corporate influence over politics. No one is saying we should tear down all corporations and stop them from producing goods and services, we are saying that they should not be allowed to have influence in policy making, at least not as much as they do now. I've said this multiple times as well.


The way I view it is, if you don't like the way things are, do something about it, take some action or something. But complaining isn't going to accomplish much.


I am doing something by educating myself about what is going on in this country. Awareness is the first step to finding a solution, since you can't solve the problems if you don't know what they are.


And I'm not affiliated with any parties, I agree with stuff from all 3 sides. (Dem, Lib, && Rep).


Yet you seem to bash Democrats and Obama while promoting conservative Republican ideals, without acknowledging that those ideals are a huge contributing factor to the mess we are currently in. There are way more than 3 sides and 3 parties btw.


Its just more human corruption, and lol, that's nothing new.


No it's not new, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it as much as possible.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 7/1/10

orangeflute wrote:

Why don't we just loot and plunder Europe?


Because that's called theft.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/1/10 , edited 7/1/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

I don't think it'll be easier to looting other countries than regulating your own economy system. Even American's soldier in war in developing countries are not that successful, 2 developing countries in middle-east. Moreover with developed nations in rich lands with solid military and more than 5 nations you're going war with. As the response, the international community will not agree and possibly will attack America too.

Then America will be attacked from South by America latin nations to get away from imperialism. Russia and China will form alliance to attack from west, possibly with Japan, as they want US base to get removed as well. While America invading European with middle-east countries supporting them to defending their territory in the north as well. It's great loss then profit. Image is far more important than money after all.


Of course, it is because we decided to follow a hippy-ish policy of 'don't kill innocents' that is hindering us from victory. If we were to adopt a Kill&Plunder policy more suitable for these sorts of thing, we will accomplish our goals. Don't be under some sad delusion that it is the will to resist imperialism that keeps our victory at bay, if we use much more bombs, care less for civilians casualty, and loot as many places as possible (including random houses), we would sure be generating a greater revenue than that which is put into the war. Additionally, Latin America and South America will not attack us if they see that shiny nuke pointed at them.

China will not attack us so long as we have a debt, they wouldn't want to kill the goose of the golden eggs now, would they?
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/1/10
Now you're just being silly. Of course the whole topic was but hey. I had a history teacher who used to love making outrageous statements just to get his students to put down their pens look up from their books and ENGAGE in the class.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.