[QUOTE=Gorgon Heap]
And to be frank, China’s remarkable investment in the US and its effect on our dept, as well as the extent of our war spending, simply isn’t on most people’s radar.
[/QUOTE]
Probably because the same doomsday scenario was floating in the '80s. Yet we somehow aren’t speaking Japanese…
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Joke or not, it still implied that Raven was stupid.
Strongly.
[/QUOTE]
Had long drawn out reply done, fuck it.
It. was. a. joke.
Don’t find it funny, sorry 'bout that. Had I wanted to directly call the poster stupid, I’d have done so, this is the pit, certainly can do it. ** Chose** not to. POster wants to assume a specific insulting word was meant though specifically not said, knock yourself out.
And as we all know, jokes are never insulting.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And as we all know, jokes are never insulting.
[/QUOTE]
So, a Jew, a Pollack, and a Feminist walk into a bar and
YOU’RE A MORON!!!
-Joe
[QUOTE=Miller]
And as we all know, jokes are never insulting.
[/QUOTE]
God, get over yourself, too.
Had I intended to directly insult the poster, I’d have done so. I chose not to. The poster chose to see the joke as a direct insult, replacing written words w/others. They can do that. Don’t know why you’d want to bother, but there it is. I intended no direct insult to the poster. Period.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Well, duh, you just print more money!
:rolleyes:
(Perhaps she’s related to the genius quoted in my signature)
[/QUOTE]
When the Feds cut interest rates, this is exactly what happens. They indeed print more money. Interest-rate cuts risk inlfation AND definitely weaken the dollar for just this reason.
On another note: There is ‘national debt’ and there is a ‘budget deficit’. You can have a balanced budget for years and still have national debt.
Growing an economy: Some debt is necessary to grow an economy. Of course, it is so out of control now that the argument gets burried under the debt, but some debt is okay. Everything must be weighed against the growth of the economy (GDP, etc).
Forget Dems vs. Republicans. There ain’t a bozo in the running (or in Congress) that is going to do anything to fix either the budget deficit or the national debt. Dems and Republicans are growing government in the worng ways and there is not enough tax power to overcome the mismanagement.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Yes, it has significance, but as Really Not All That Bright just said, the trade deficit and our interest rates as far more significance. Cite, cite, cite, cite.
And even for the part that the deficit plays in the falling dollar, the war is about $170 billion cost in a $2.1 trillion government budget running around about a $300 billion deficit. You simply cannot make a serious argument that the war is a primary, or even secondary, cause of the falling dollar.
In short, you’re wrong, and probably not as smart on this subject as you thought.
[/QUOTE]
You’re overstating your case here.
From your first link: “In other words, dollars have become our biggest export.” From your third: “Most of that money comes from foreign central banks, which own large amounts of dollars.” Those dollars owned by foreign countries come in large part from their purchase of US debt. And since the war is, as you noted, a large percentage of the US deficit every year, it contributes every single year to the debt, meaning that foreign investors must continue purchasing it (the US savings rate is too low to soak it up), thus pushing down the value of the dollar internationally.
I wouldn’t call it a “primary” factor, but it definitely is a secondary consideration.
[QUOTE=Kendall Jackson]
I wouldn’t call it a “primary” factor, but it definitely is a secondary consideration.
[/QUOTE]
There has so far been just over $500 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, going back to 2001.
The current national debt is about $9.5 trillion. Our debt in 2001 was about $5.8 trillion.
So roughly 10 percent of the growth of the debt in the last 7 years is due to the cost of the war. That’s a pretty broad definition of “secondary” consideration.
I stand by my case.
[QUOTE=wring]
God, get over yourself, too.
Had I intended to directly insult the poster, I’d have done so. I chose not to. The poster chose to see the joke as a direct insult, replacing written words w/others. They can do that. Don’t know why you’d want to bother, but there it is. I intended no direct insult to the poster. Period.
[/QUOTE]
You directly implied that Raven was as stupd as the person you were initially pitting. Shut the fuck up and quit trying to dig yourself out of a hole by claiming “joke”. Yes, it was a joke. It was also a very, VERY obvious insult to anyone who happened to read it.
[QUOTE=wring]
God, get over yourself, too.
Had I intended to directly insult the poster, I’d have done so. I chose not to. The poster chose to see the joke as a direct insult, replacing written words w/others. They can do that. Don’t know why you’d want to bother, but there it is. I intended no direct insult to the poster. Period.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I generally like you, wring, but right now, you’re being a douche. Knock it off.
[QUOTE=Miller]
You know, I generally like you, wring, but right now, you’re being a douche. Knock it off.
[/QUOTE]
And I’ve had a fun filled day tip toeing around folks who got bent out of shape over nothing, and had enough of it. If I’ve fucking said I meant no specific insult what is the goddam problem?
Wouldn’t it be easier to admit that you made a mistake and you’re sorry for it rather than feeding the pile-on? Sometimes it’s easier to just shrug your shoulders and get past it rather than fighting, which is what you seem to be intent on doing.
It’s your call, but all you have to say is “Sorry for the misunderstanding”. Cut and paste it, even. Or keep fighting, in which case I’ll see you on page 6 of a trainwreck, still pulling your hair out over nothing.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
It’s your call, but all you have to say is “Sorry for the misunderstanding”. Cut and paste it, even. Or keep fighting, in which case I’ll see you on page 6 of a trainwreck, still pulling your hair out over nothing.
[/QUOTE]
what precisely is the difference between saying “Sorry for the misunderstanding” and “I meant no intentional insult”? Frankly I think the second, which IV’e said, is much more concilliatory. But if people still insist on taking offense when I’ve specifically stated over and over that I meant no specific offense, what the fuck can I do?
You can stop larding your “apologies” with “fuck” and “Goddamn”, for starters. When your attempts at conciliation read like “Fuck you, I said I was sorry, and if that’s not OK with you you can shove it up your ass”, that’s not very conciliatory, if you know what I mean.
[QUOTE=wring]
what precisely is the difference between saying “Sorry for the misunderstanding” and “I meant no intentional insult”? Frankly I think the second, which IV’e said, is much more concilliatory. But if people still insist on taking offense when I’ve specifically stated over and over that I meant no specific offense, what the fuck can I do?
[/QUOTE]
I have no dog in this debate, but I think I might be able to clarify a little.
While some people might interpret “I meant no intentional insult” as a sincere apology, other people might interpret it as a form of “I’m sorry that you got offended” apology.
[QUOTE=wring]
And I’ve had a fun filled day tip toeing around folks who got bent out of shape over nothing, and had enough of it. If I’ve fucking said I meant no specific insult what is the goddam problem?
[/QUOTE]
Okay, here’s how this works. Poster A tells a joke. Poster B finds the joke insulting. The adult response from Poster A at this point is, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it to be insulting. Please accept my apology.” The immature response is, “Fuck you, it was joke, you humorless prick.” You’ve chosen to go with Option B, apparently on the basis that other people in your life have been aggravating, so that makes it okay to be a prick to uninvolved third parties. This, too, is immature. So, in a nutshell, the “goddam problem” is that you’re acting like a child, and people tend to find that behavior annoying, particularly when it’s coming from someone who is not, in fact, a child.
Look - in post 28, it should be clear that I couldn’t even see where the poster thought I specifically called them stupid. Frankly it wasn’t until I did a “search word” that I re-discoverd that I used the word in the title of the thread. It baffled me that they took offense.
I cannot believe that I’m getting shit in the pit for saying fuck and that folks thought I was calling another poster stupid.
I meant no specific intentional offense.
I have repeatedly said that.
There it is, without the “fuck”
enough?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Okay, here’s how this works. Poster A tells a joke. Poster B finds the joke insulting. The adult response from Poster A at this point is, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it to be insulting. Please accept my apology.” The immature response is, “Fuck you, it was joke, you humorless prick.” You’ve chosen to go with Option B, apparently on the basis that other people in your life have been aggravating, so that makes it okay to be a prick to uninvolved third parties. This, too, is immature. So, in a nutshell, the “goddam problem” is that you’re acting like a child, and people tend to find that behavior annoying, particularly when it’s coming from someone who is not, in fact, a child.
[/QUOTE]
Miller never mind.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
There has so far been just over $500 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, going back to 2001.
The current national debt is about $9.5 trillion. Our debt in 2001 was about $5.8 trillion.
So roughly 10 percent of the growth of the debt in the last 7 years is due to the cost of the war. That’s a pretty broad definition of “secondary” consideration.
I stand by my case.
[/QUOTE]
First, that 500 billion is just Iraq from the stuff I’ve seen. And so we’re dealing with 2003, with a 6.8 trillion dollar debt as the baseline, which puts the war at about 20%.
That’s far from the whole pie, but it’s still a good sized chunk. Definitely not the primary cause, but without a doubt a contributing factor. And since Random House says it’s okay, I’m gonna go with “of lesser importance” for my definition of “secondary”. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly broad definition, especially considering the fact that international exchange rates can be influenced by factors such as confidence, and a the world’s lack of confidence because of the war might be yet another contributing factor to the weak dollar.
What’s more, wring was responding to the statement: “Our trade deficit- and thus the strength of the dollar- has nothing to do with borrowing to pay for the Iraq war. It was there a long, long time before the invasion.”
wring was absolutely correct to point out that error, and you were overstating your case, and making a mistake about wring’s comment, when you added: “Yes, it has significance, but as Really Not All That Bright just said, the trade deficit and our interest rates as far more significance.” For starters, that’s not what RNATB had said. RNATB made an unequivocal statement that was incorrect. Since RNATB was the first to make the mistake, maybe I should’ve went to the source instead of correcting you. But sometimes it’s convenient to hit the last person, just to try to nip it before it spreads further.
But frankly, I’m almost sorry I bothered, 'cause Miller’s right when he says that wring is being a bit douchy here. And you weren’t incorrect in other criticisms of the OP.
Jesus Christ, what is so hard about just saying “sorry?”