BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:33:29 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:

spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?

Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

yep, the right keeps confirming that LIBERALS have the right ideas.
LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcs, not right wing bull****, makes an economy
grow.

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

There was a lot more complexity to the investment in WWII.

We were investing our money in an enterprise to destroy all of our
competition ... literally.

We built the bombs that laid waste to the industrial capacity of
virtually all of our competition while the rest of the western world
paid us to build them more bombs.

That is not likely to happen today. The industrial capacity has left
the country. If for some strange reason we reenacted WWII today, China
would win, simply because they have the industrial capacity to build
all the weapons to arm their 100 million man army and still export
weapons for the rest of the world.

Nukes have made that an unlikely prospect tho. That is why we have had
to declare wars, for no particular reason, on backward countries who
can't really fight back. Our idea of the WWII prosperity today is the
million dollars a man we **** away in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is
really not providing much employment and we are doing more damage to
our own economy than we are to the rest of the world.

WWII analogies simply do not apply.

Which is correct up to a point. Yet, you used this argument to bolster
your position against stim funding.