You Republicans went into a virtual orgasm when a bunch of "Ole Time Religion" Muslims attacked us on 9/11 and so we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military involvement, including long term befents for the military retirees from these conflicts, justified by non-existent WMD's, is going to total $3 trillion. This is a cost the whole world couldn't bear, so the world's economies went into a tailspin and we were left with what is called the "world financial crisis". Now, some of you GOPpers still haven't leared and are clamoring for an invasion of Iran too! I guess to GOPpers, the "Good 'Ole Days" they yearn for would be a repeat of the Dark Ages! End of liberal diatribe
UHHHHH? I disagree for the most part. But the problem is the people who vote for the GOP are not focused on the aspects of which you speak.
what liberals did not vote to go to Iraq? on edit ; liberals did vote to go to war and have voted often to invade other countries, the problem is on both sides of a crooked fence
It was the keynesian stimulus of world war 2 which brought us out of the depression. Its you who havent learned.
You would be hard pressed to find an economist that would be willing to draw a straight line between the invasion of Iraq in 2001 and the global economic melt down in 2008. To characterize an entire political spectrum as having gone into "virtual orgasm" because of horrific slaughter of over 3,000 innocent civilians by a bunch of regime backed slithering misfit cowards is outrageously dishonest. To suggest, as it appears, only Republicans wanted pay back is ignorant dishonesty. A simple check of historical records shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted war; one of the reason George W. Bush's approval ratings soared toward the 90 per cent mark. As memory serves there was overwhelming support for the invasion of Iraq on both side of the House and Senate and, for once, Barak Owebama did not vote "present' but "yes" to that invasion. This forum is not at all served by this type of mindless fraudulence and mis-characterization.
Yes, while a slightly different assessment may be in order, the reality is that capitalism that is in decline and is disintegrating into the greed we see among the minority of sociopathic rich, becomes a warring nation of militaristic policies driven by ideologies of fear and ruthless nationalism.
I and most people I knew were against it. Democrats in congress voted for it ON THE BASIS OF LIES THEY WERE TOLD. Do you then blame them for believing what government agencies told them? Fact is, the Bush administration lied us into war. Don't pretend you don't know this.
WHAT haven't we learned? WWII was not financed off the books and supplied by foreign manufacturers like Iraq and Afganistan were. There was a huge war effort in the U.S. that created jobs during WWII. And what we learned from it is that modern capitalism requires enormous productivity that either isn't beneficial to the quality of life for Americans, or it requires enormous consumption based on debt.
Yes, many are employed during wartime. It has proven beneficial to the economy. Care to provide evidence for this outlandish claim? It provided for a tremendous increase in living standards. The best in U.S history prior to the revolution, which actually isnt U.S history as it predates the U.S.A
LOL!! Sure! Our economy is considered weak and suffering if GDP is not increasing constantly. Individual businesses are seen as failing if they are not growing, increasing markets, increasing sales, and expanding. And to increase sales it is normal for manufacturers to make products that will fail sooner than they may so that they will be replaced. The sales perspective is "SELL, SELL, SELL!". I've been in sales so I speak from experience. Economic GROWTH is essential to cpaitalism, but how far can expansion go? How much production is sufficient? In Iceland the view is now approaching that of "we can easily produce more than enough goods to supply our population fully for all needs" so they are looking at going to a "base pay" approach that assures all workers a sufficient income for a comfortable standard of living. From there they look toward improving on it as the national function.
Do you have evidence to substantiate this outlandish claim? Or is this simply another irrelevant rant?