View Full Version : $87,000,000,000.00
Lt. Killer M
16-10-2003, 11:41
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
When I heard that amount for the first time...... [mouth]
The wonderful & frightening world of...[rolleyes]
Wow! Dubya could make a lot of paper balls out of that huge money stockpile and fire these against those bloody terrorists that are spread throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
Equally good: buy some tomahawks, as these, after all, are known to be very effective weapons against terrorism - when fired, of course!:). Oh yeah, and those frequently starting-off aircraft from carriers, dropping bombs once in a while, are very well helping to establish democracy here & there:). Oh well, all these elaborate methods are very good, but expensive. Formerly, it only took a small amount of money to establish the dicta...erm a little peaceful government here & there:(. Hmm. What about re-building? All that scrapped infrastructure and whatnot must be made up again! Besides the congress, isn't there some organisation, normally well-known to be quite ignorant towards very useful anti-terrorist foreign policy, asking infamous amounts of membership shares as return service :mad: (hence shares not paid), that cares in most cases for such utterly desolated countries? Yes there is, time to go diplomatic and ask the UN for help.:)
Btw, secure sources say that there's also a lot of terrorists sitting in Syria all over the place, requiring the same succesful abatement arrangements. And in Iran. And... well, ask the congress, "terrorism" is the catchphrase.
[rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes]
edit: dubya's hypnotising gaze influenced me that I messed up the smiley tags...[lol]
smalltalk
16-10-2003, 18:56
From one of my fave movies:
"Shit piles up so high here, that you'd need wings to stay above it."
jack merchant
17-10-2003, 11:38
Funny thing is it won't even be enough, either (IIRC only $20 billion of that amount is for Iraqi reconstruction).
Of course, there's no way Congress will appropriate sufficient money for Afghanistan after OK'ing this this request - chances are that country will go straight back to hell.
Unregister
20-10-2003, 01:08
quote:Originally posted by jack merchant
chances are that country will go straight back to hell.
i didn't realize that they had ever gotten away from being hell...
jack merchant
22-10-2003, 13:02
They did spend some time in Limbo in case you didn't notice :p
Pastorius
04-06-2005, 23:33
[spam]
Isn't this such a feeble amount now considering what the Leader is now spending? He's trying to get your cash too, not just from us.
that's the most interesting part of the crisis imo.
Money is in short supply because banks are affraid to lend it to each other but no one fears borrowing the governments of the world some and they are spending like there's no tomorrow.
Shabbaman
31-03-2009, 12:57
He's trying to get your cash too.
I know you're not an Obamafan, so I assume there is some hidden implication behind this message ;)
The way I look at it, the US has had the rest of the world paying for it's expenses (you know, the tax cuts you republicans like so much) for many years. The US is running on deficit for a long time (to be frank, most countries are, and that's not a good thing either). Where's the money to fill this deficit coming from? The current crisis shows that most of this money is produced out of thin air, but still a significant amount is bought by countries like China and Saudi Arabia. This is a bit scary, because this gives foreign nations leverage over other nations. I've been puzzled for years (easy to say, but true: when I was in high school I learned that the Japanese owned a lot of US companies and real estate. It might not be the Japanese anymore, but the thought is the same) why the US lets this happen.
It's easy to believe in conspiracies, but I've read so many books by Ludlum and Clancy that it's hard NOT to think of some hidden scheme of the chinese to topple the US economy.
But back to your message: he's not coming for our money, we're overspending ourselves. He's coming for more chinese money, and we love to chinese for that simply because we have US bonds as well. Nobody wants the US to fall, especially not the Chinese (but then again, maybe they do... several trillion dollars is cheaper than invading the US (OOPS, there I triggered the NSA spy network)). But the hard part: you say it as if he's coming for YOUR money. Is he? Compared to what we pay in taxes you pay next to nothing. Aren't you living on Chinese money to begin with? Now, as he's doing stuff with money he lends on your name, you're entitled to say what he's going to do with it. I'm no economist, but giving money to companies like GM and Chrysler doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. These companies are hurt by the crisis, but they were going down to begin with. Where's the Free Market Economy now? Another scary thought is that these companies are mainly in swing states. No politician with White House aspirations would ever come up with a plan that would hurt these swing states. That's why the US still has coal mines.
socralynnek
31-03-2009, 13:32
Isn't this such a feeble amount now considering what the Leader is now spending? He's trying to get your cash too, not just from us.
Still, there is a big difference. At that time, the cause of the need for money (the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) were made by the Bush administration.
And the other option, not invading in first place would have cost 0. (Just talking from a money point of view, whether the world would be a better place with or without those wars is another thing)
Now, the cause, the crisis (house crisis / subprime crisis / bank crisis / car crisis / economy dropping due to high oil price etc.) where not made by Obama administration (not by Bush either, probably only parts of it).
And the cost of not spending that money can only be guessed. Not doing anything would clearly be wrong, but not all measures Obama takes are helping more than they cost.(*)
So, you can't really compare those two things.
(*) (For example, I think helping GM so much is wrong, as there are enough car companies on Earth who can fill the gap if GM is bancrupt. Or I think the Geithner plan to help investors buying toxic investments is wrong, cause the possible gains go to investors but possible losses are paid by taxpayers. Then better nationalize banks in first place. At least the taxpayer then could get the possible gains as well)
Lt. Killer M
31-03-2009, 13:51
lynnek, he wants to bash Obama, as is clear from his choice of words: 'our leader'. So forget arguing the issues!
lynnek, he wants to bash Obama, as is clear from his choice of words: 'our leader'. So forget arguing the issues!
You are too funny, and too wrong. I've bashed Obama. I don't like him, but it is what it is. Also, you'll notice I didn't say "our leader", but rather "the leader".
None the less, I don't see anything in Propain's, Shabba's, or ynnek's posts that I disagree with at face value. Scary isn't it? So take that Killer :P
Lt. Killer M
31-03-2009, 23:14
You are too funny, and too wrong. I've bashed Obama. I don't like him, but it is what it is. Also, you'll notice I didn't say "our leader", but rather "the leader".
I stand corrected. You were even petty enough to capitalize the Leader.
None the less, I don't see anything in Propain's, Shabba's, or ynnek's posts that I disagree with at face value. Scary isn't it? So take that Killer :P
Then why did you post what you posted, the way you posted it?
Oh, trying to sneak in a few cheap hits. Despicable.
I stand corrected. You were even petty enough to capitalize the Leader.
Then why did you post what you posted, the way you posted it?
Oh, trying to sneak in a few cheap hits. Despicable.
WTF are you talking about? I'm despicable? Are you just trying to goad me into an argument over semantics in this thread as well? Seriously man, what is your problem with me in particular? Every time I write something on this freaking forum you take the opposite position and attempt to make me look a fool (and on this topic, I'm not even sure what your position is other than to show all that you despise me).
Edit: Please realize that this is a forum for people who enjoy Civilizations in all it's many varieties. I can be as petty as I want when referencing any political leader I so desire, and with no hard hitting repercussions other than to apparently offend Killer. I don't believe any real world problems will be gutted out on this forum. Seriously, they won't.
I don't believe any real world problems will be gutted out on this forum. Seriously, they won't.
Man, you just burst my bubble ;)
Killer, I don't see any problems with Mauers post and I don't see anything despicable in it either.
In true CDZ spirit I think everybody should be able to post almost anything they want but please let's all try to keep things civilised
Shabbaman
01-04-2009, 12:28
You are too funny, and too wrong. I've bashed Obama. I don't like him, but it is what it is. Also, you'll notice I didn't say "our leader", but rather "the leader".
None the less, I don't see anything in Propain's, Shabba's, or ynnek's posts that I disagree with at face value. Scary isn't it? So take that Killer :P
The funny thing is that you appear as that redneck that's inviting us to bash america, while I know that you're a lot smarter than most europeans believe a redneck is (to be clear: this is a compliment to you, not to rednecks in general). That's why I said that there's probably some hidden implication in your post.
Which there probably is. What's your point? Yes, they are spending like there's no tomorrow, but wasn't that originally a plan of the Bush administration? It could very well be they think there is no tomorrow if they can't get out of this crisis.
Overspending seems a weird solution to a crisis that was caused by overspending. Perhaps it'll only make things worse. But it's caused by the open market the americans want. To us euro's it's so very funny to see hardcore capitalists beg for more government money, to see people riot in the streets because of corporate bonuses. Well, nothing funny about the misery, it's more the irony that makes it funny. What's definately not funny is that ordinary people are hurt by stupid things rich people do.
But anyway, back to the assumed hidden implication: What Would A True Republican Leader Do?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.