http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...10736775.htm?1c So, it seems dubya has completley fucked the country over. Taking office with a several billion dollar surplus and turning it into a $427 billion dollar deficit. If the moron's IQ was in the double digits, I'd be scared of what the dumbass would do to this country.
Well, suprise suprise! He spends hundreds of billions on Iraq for no fucking reason and gets his country into some deep trouble. Great one, Dubya! I mean, if he spent as much effort helping his own people, he could have used this money to fund a universal healthcare program in the US for the next decade. To spend a lot is something, but to spend a lot on a greedy and worthless cause is something I can never forgive, but I am dumbfounded at the number of people who do.
Oh wait, don't worry guys, war stimulates economy.... [/sarcasm] That's the biggest economic lie EVER.
Actually, World War 2 brought your country out of the depression, so that statement isn't entirely false.
Actually, World War 2 brought your country out of the depression, so that statement isn't entirely false. [/b][/quote] Yes, I'm aware, but I'm talking purely theoretical. World War II was an exception, and keep in mind that at that time, you U.S. produced over half of the world's oil, and half of it's electricity. How could we NOT do well economically? But strictly by principle, war hurts the economy in ways you can't see, because to see the effects you'd need to consider what would happen if your country hadn't put it's money towards war. This fallacy was disproven by the "broken window theory." Let's say you own a house, and have two daughters. One of your daughters throws a baseball through your window and shatters it, forcing you to go buy a new window. Now, under the logic of economic stimuli during war time, you'd be stimulating the economy. You are putting money into the economy by buying a new window, and the window factory is providing the good of the new window for your home. But let's look at what happens if you didn't have to pay for a new window. Your money would not be spent on a new window, but rather, something else. Let's just say you buy a picture frame for the same price. You are putting money towards the picture frame sellers, and you are recieving the good of the picture frame. But in scenario B, you are better off, since you now have a window and a picture frame. In the first scenario, you only have a window. In both scenario's you spent the same amount of money. The same can be applied to war. One's funds would go to other, more beneficial things, rather than be put towards weapons or the military.
Naw, I got it off a tutorial called: How To Look Smart And Not Have Ignorant Fools Mock You... Apparently the tutorial was a bit off.. :whistle:
Are you saying that a 427 billion deficit is justified? :whistle: [/b][/quote] Nope, saying Bush is a moron for putting so much money into something he started and finished... and then continued on for no reason. They have Saddam, there are no WMDs. Get the fuck out Bush you control freak.
Hmm... how strange, the Department of Homeland Security is founded, the people of this department have "meetings" every weekend in places like, oh Hawaii and such. How beneficial to our economy. Except not.
Nope, saying Bush is a moron for putting so much money into something he started and finished... and then continued on for no reason. They have Saddam, there are no WMDs. Get the fuck out Bush you control freak. [/b][/quote] lol, for some reason I had the notion you were a republican... :chemist: Now that we've cleared that up... SCREW YOU BUSH