Why the 'Recovery' Is Taking So Long

[_Simpson_ 250]

Two things:

1) Iraq was hardly a defense matter - despite what the administration then told the American people, there was no actual threat to our national security coming from Iraq. Invading and destabilizing Iraq has, however, contributed to emboldening Iran which does now turn into a national security issue.

2) The money Bush spent on Iraq was loaned at interest from countries like China all the same. Not one dime of it was actually paid for.

Will be? We've been spending trillions on health care for many years now.

Hindsight is 20/20

Edited April 4, 2010 by _Simpson_

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hindsight is 20/20

Well, perhaps to you it is. I've consistently been on record in opposition of the misguided adventure in Iraq. Never thought for a minute that we should have invaded that country. But even those that supported it at some point in time now know what a huge mistake it was. To then build an argument on the false assumption that Iraq is a defense matter is quite dishonest.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Well, perhaps to you it is. I've consistently been on record in opposition of the misguided adventure in Iraq. Never thought for a minute that we should have invaded that country. But even those that supported it at some point in time now know what a huge mistake it was. To then build an argument on the false assumption that Iraq is a defense matter is quite dishonest.

Yes I know you have always had the same stance.I am saying that we had more than enough reason to believe Saddam might have Weapons of Mass Destruction and then were was the faulty intel(from several countries). Yes it was a mistake and no we shouldnt have invaded Iraq but to look back and act like you knew all along with certainty is dishonest or naive. I remember the time and many on the left and right believed he had WMD(or would shortly have the means) but the argument was often how we should go about it and that is where alot of the disagreement came in.

[alienlovechild 75]

1) Iraq was hardly a defense matter - despite what the administration then told the American people, there was no actual threat to our national security coming from Iraq. Invading and destabilizing Iraq has, however, contributed to emboldening Iran which does now turn into a national security issue.

Our course Iraq is a defense matter as the Department of Defense is the one overseeing two wars. They're in the chain-of-ccmmand and the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines are under them. If you didn't know that most of your opinions on the U.S. military shoud be taken in cups of salt. Iraq was a threat for years and even Clinton upheld no fly zones and sanctions for WMD noncompliance and not wanting Iraq to attack the Kurds and Kuwait. Amazing how most liberals have completely erased the Clinton years on Iraq from their collective memories just like those old Soviet encyclopedias erasing people from the text. Now I know it was done.

Iran has been a security threat since the 1979 revolution but I agree that without a strong Iraqi military, Iran benefits by having a big threat removed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Our course Iraq is a defense matter as the Department of Defense is the one overseeing two wars. They're in the chain-of-ccmmand and the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines are under them. If you didn't know that most of your opinions on the U.S. military shoud be taken in cups of salt. Iraq was a threat for years and even Clinton upheld no fly zones and sanctions for WMD noncompliance and not wanting Iraq to attack the Kurds and Kuwait. Amazing how most liberals have completely erased the Clinton years on Iraq from their collective memories just like those old Soviet encyclopedias erasing people from the text. Now I know it was done.

There's a difference - both in strategy and cost - between containment (Clinton) and invasion (Bush II). That's the simple point I'm making. The invasion was never a matter of necessity but a matter of desire on part of the neo-cons to "finish" the job that Bush I knew good and well was not worth taking on.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[_Simpson_ 250]

There's a difference - both in strategy and cost - between containment (Clinton) and invasion (Bush II). That's the simple point I'm making. The invasion was never a matter of necessity but a matter of desire on part of the neo-cons to "finish" the job that Bush I knew good and well was not worth taking on.

are you sure it wasn't for oil?

[SpiritAlight 1]

Had the 700, 800 or was it more billion dollars been given to small and medium sized businesses, we would have been wayyyy out of the "hole" by now.

The reaction (catalyst) would have worked because:

Small to medium size businesses would have

` hired more people

` produced more product...home made!!!

` provided more services...yippee!!!

` spent more money, probably on U.S soil...i.e. buying homes, refurbishing their homes, restaurants, movies, etc. all good, all good

Oh the list is long.

Here is the abbreviated version.

Can anyone truly wrap their head around how much even one billion dollars is?

Bah!

It all seems to have gone into the black hole known as megasized-corporation-business-thingy.

Vanished.

[scandal 951]

Can anyone truly wrap their head around how much even one billion dollars is?

A billion is not that big. Not these days, at any rate. It's 10^9, just a thousand million.

Until recently trillion seemed like a scary number, but increasingly I'm seeing references to quadrillion dollars.

E.g. in the book I'm currently reading (Leo Melamed's 'For Crying Out Loud'):

The Clearing House system's aggregate financial resources are today over $100 billion, including its $8 billion guaranty fund. In 2008, it handled 3.3 billion contracts with a notional value of $1.2 quadrillion.

Ok, notional value doesn't mean traded value. It means the value of the contracts underlying the derivatives being traded. Still, that is a mind boggling number to get your head around. $1 quadrillion = 10^15, or one thousand million million dollars.

[luckytxn 2,265]

A billion is not that big. Not these days, at any rate. It's 10^9, just a thousand million.

Until recently trillion seemed like a scary number, but increasingly I'm seeing references to quadrillion dollars.

E.g. in the book I'm currently reading (Leo Melamed's 'For Crying Out Loud'):

The Clearing House system's aggregate financial resources are today over $100 billion, including its $8 billion guaranty fund. In 2008, it handled 3.3 billion contracts with a notional value of $1.2 quadrillion.

Ok, notional value doesn't mean traded value. It means the value of the contracts underlying the derivatives being traded. Still, that is a mind boggling number to get your head around. $1 quadrillion = 10^15, or one thousand million million dollars.

I am starting to think that the inflation going crazy may be good and just wipe out that nasty little deficit we have. Worked for Germany. Pissed France off though.