On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:25:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:38:48 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:21:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:28:20 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:39:27 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:08:34 -0700, wrote:

The fact remains our exports are far exceeded by our imports.
Until we start repatriating more of our dollars, we are just moving
the deck chairs around on the Titanic.

As usual, you can't even support your own arguments. Our exports
exceed our imports? Actually, it's the reverse, but it's not "far
exceeded". It's about $1.3T export to about $2T import.

Read what I wrote again

"The fact remains our exports are far exceeded by our imports."

It is easy to say I am wrong if you can't ****ing read.

Using your numbers ($700B more in imports) I think 153% is "far
exceeded".

My apologies. I'm just used to you muddling the facts when you try to
make your "****ing" arguments. Thanks for being civil.

As I said, there an imbalance, but it's not out of line historically,
as per 2002.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...deDeficit.html

Try again.

When did I say this was a recent problem?
You do notice when the current slide really started tho.
(1997-1998)

You didn't, but you implied that it somehow has to be fixed
immediately. It doesn't. It's a long term problem that needs long term
solutions.

The short term problem is unemployment, which is easily fixed if the
Republicans were actually interested in anything more than the next
election.


Easily fixed? You better call Washington because I have not seen any
easy fixes coming from them. This "infrastructure" thing is just
****ing on the fire. FDR and Hoover did infrastructure projects for 10
years and we still had a hell of a depression 10 years later.

No, Hoover did it in 1930 for a few years. Then, he pulled back,
restricted the money supply, etc. FDR did infrastructure also, but
pulled back on it too soon. FDR's infrastructure projects reduced
unemployment significantly, and they would if continued have
eventually got us out of the Depression.

As usual, there's no comparison between the Depression and what's
going on now. But, that doesn't stop you from making it a comparison
to deny the fact that we need a massive, gov't instigated jobs
program.

Now if we just could trick the rest of the world into blowing
themselves up in a war that does not touch us like FDR did for his
great success we would be able to recreate our success of the 50s and
60s.

As I said, you're mixing two different things, which seems to be your
style.

The post war Americans were born on 3d base and think they hit a
triple.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Some kind of put down for
people who worked hard between the end of the war and now?

On Sep 7, 3:09*am, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:25:02 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:38:48 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:21:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:28:20 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:39:27 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:08:34 -0700, wrote:

The fact remains our exports are far exceeded by our imports.
Until we start repatriating more of our dollars, we are just moving
the deck chairs around on the Titanic.

As usual, you can't even support your own arguments. Our exports
exceed our imports? Actually, it's the reverse, but it's not "far
exceeded". It's about $1.3T export to about $2T import.

Read what I wrote again

"The fact remains our exports are far exceeded by our imports."

It is easy to say I am wrong if you can't ****ing read.

Using your numbers ($700B more in imports) I think 153% is "far
exceeded".

My apologies. I'm just used to you muddling the facts when you try to
make your "****ing" arguments. Thanks for being civil.

As I said, there an imbalance, but it's not out of line historically,
as per 2002.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...deDeficit.html

Try again.

When did I say this was a recent problem?
You do notice when the current slide really started tho.
(1997-1998)

You didn't, but you implied that it somehow has to be fixed
immediately. It doesn't. It's a long term problem that needs long term
solutions.

The short term problem is unemployment, which is easily fixed if the
Republicans were actually interested in anything more than the next
election.

Easily fixed? You better call Washington because I have not seen any
easy fixes coming from them. This "infrastructure" thing is just
****ing on the fire. FDR and Hoover did infrastructure projects for 10
years and we still had a hell of a depression 10 years later.

No, Hoover did it in 1930 for a few years. Then, he pulled back,
restricted the money supply, etc. FDR did infrastructure also, but
pulled back on it too soon. FDR's infrastructure projects reduced
unemployment significantly, and they would if continued have
eventually got us out of the Depression.

As usual, there's no comparison between the Depression and what's
going on now. But, that doesn't stop you from making it a comparison
to deny the fact that we need a massive, gov't instigated jobs
program.

Now if we just could trick the rest of the world into blowing
themselves up in a war that does not touch us like FDR did for his
great success we would be able to recreate our success of the 50s and
60s.

As I said, you're mixing two different things, which seems to be your
style.

The post war Americans were born on 3d base and think they hit a
triple.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Some kind of put down for
people who worked hard between the end of the war and now?

Of course you don't know what it means, D'Plume. You didn't have to
have a brain to goose-step to the Obama drum.

On 9/7/2011 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:09:10 -0700, wrote:

No that is only to indicate why we somehow think we are invincible and
nothing bad could ever happen to us.
We have 3 generations of people who have never actually had anything
bad happen to them.

You are certainly one of those in denial that anything bad could
happen when we keep printing money and sending it offshore.

She is a benefactor of the cloudless Obama sky.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:40:18 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:09:10 -0700, wrote:

Easily fixed? You better call Washington because I have not seen any
easy fixes coming from them. This "infrastructure" thing is just
****ing on the fire. FDR and Hoover did infrastructure projects for 10
years and we still had a hell of a depression 10 years later.

No, Hoover did it in 1930 for a few years. Then, he pulled back,
restricted the money supply, etc. FDR did infrastructure also, but
pulled back on it too soon. FDR's infrastructure projects reduced
unemployment significantly, and they would if continued have
eventually got us out of the Depression.

Bull****. The war got us out of the depression.

Yes, the war did. However, FDR's programs would have if he didn't pull
back on them. Read up.

As usual, there's no comparison between the Depression and what's
going on now. But, that doesn't stop you from making it a comparison
to deny the fact that we need a massive, gov't instigated jobs
program.

A massive jobs program still will not get our money back from overseas
and that is the root of our problems.

That is a LONG TERM problem. We have a SHORT TERM job problem. Try
again.


Now if we just could trick the rest of the world into blowing
themselves up in a war that does not touch us like FDR did for his
great success we would be able to recreate our success of the 50s and
60s.

As I said, you're mixing two different things, which seems to be your
style.

Not at all, you were talking about what ended the depression.

Nope. I wasn't. I was talking about programs that worked during the
Depression.


The post war Americans were born on 3d base and think they hit a
triple.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Some kind of put down for
people who worked hard between the end of the war and now?

No that is only to indicate why we somehow think we are invincible and
nothing bad could ever happen to us.
We have 3 generations of people who have never actually had anything
bad happen to them.

Really? Nothing? You can't think of a single thing, say in the last 10
years? Try to come out of your hole once every decade. The air is
fine! :-)

You are certainly one of those in denial that anything bad could
happen when we keep printing money and sending it offshore.

As usual, you deliberately mis-read what I said. See above under LONG
TERM vs. SHORT TERM.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:37:45 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:55:31 -0700, wrote:

No that is only to indicate why we somehow think we are invincible and
nothing bad could ever happen to us.
We have 3 generations of people who have never actually had anything
bad happen to them.

Really? Nothing? You can't think of a single thing, say in the last 10
years? Try to come out of your hole once every decade. The air is
fine! :-)

You don't really understand bad things yourself evidently.

What has happened that even compares to the depression or the national
sacrifices we had during WWII? ... Nothing

Depends on your definition of bad things. When millions lose there
homes and their jobs, that's pretty bad. Was the Depression a bad
thing? What about the VN or Korean wars? Were they bad? If so,
compared to what?

Those were still just minor blips compared to the bad things that can
happen. You assume that just because things have been great for the
two or three dozen years you have been on the planet that it will
always be great. You must not have taken much history in school.

Two or three dozen? I'll take that as a compliment.

Would I have had to fight and be injured or killing in any of the
previous wars? No. Did people die in Iraq/Afg.? Yes.

You still keep saying we don't have to do anything yet. When are we
going to start?

Legitimate question. Answer: After we get people working and the
economy moving again.

People like you want us to crush our economy right now because of
global warming that won't have any significant effect for 100 years
but you are not willing to do anything about the debt and entitlement
problem that will crush us in 20.

Huh? I didn't say anything about global warming. And, since you
mention it, it's a short- to long-term problem. Of course, if you deny
it's happening and human caused, then there's not much I can say. If
you don't deny it, then we need to do something NOW about it. That can
be done and help the economy both in the short-, medium-, and
long-term.