Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Historically, war helps the economy. Wha? Even in the Civilization computer game, war hurts the economy. War doesn't help the economy, especially when it's used as a diversionary tactic. Weapons = Work, basically. Historically speaking, yes, war helps the economy. This is usually why greedy dictators start wars, and it has been going on for 6000 years. In the past century, the economy started slipping after about 1911, but didn't lead anywhere because World War I prevented it (at least in Canada). Most famously, World War II brought the US out of the Great Depression following FDR's failed New Deal. The Cold War helped fuel the American economy for 40 years. Even if this war lasts about as long as the last Gulf War, at the very least the US will be getting oil out of it. In Civilization, war does not always hurt the economy. Only in democracy and republic, because otherwise those forms of government would be too powerful (they still are when played right). While using monarchy or communism, war is good. Especially since your democratic opponents will be struggling with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest phoenixrising Report post Posted March 12, 2003 EDIT 2: Historically, war helps the economy. Wha? Even in the Civilization computer game, war hurts the economy. War doesn't help the economy, especially when it's used as a diversionary tactic. Actually nothing ramps up an economy like war. Stuff like weapons production skyrockets, unemployment goes down because of the sudden need for more workers at factories. Someone that knows more about economics can probably elaborate. Keep in mind that one of America's biggest boom periods was the time immediately after the end of World War II. Edit: posted this right after Kahran and he gives a better explanation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 12, 2003 If spending can be trimmed somewhere, why not do it? Well spending is only being trimmed in these other places, in order to fund the war. The money is still being spent, (and a lot more now) it is just being re-directed towards making bombs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 War helps the economy when our economy is based on industry. This war isn't going to create jobs, and it's not gonna convince people to spend money. I fail to see how it will help the economy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mad Dog Report post Posted March 12, 2003 The stock market will go up once Saddam is removed and the fears of war are over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Doubtful. The stock market won't be healthy again until we balance the budget, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mad Dog Report post Posted March 12, 2003 The stock market is more effected by world events than how the government runs it's budget. The market will react to Saddam being removed and the threats of war over. During the 2000 Elections Gore killed the market when he wouldn't concede the election. Uncertainty = bad market And the stock market of the 90s was way too overpriced and it was known for quite awhile that it was going to fall back to about where it is now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Let's make real sure to make the mistake of thinking the President controls the economy, too. Yes, Bush blew everything. No Child Left Behind is such a stupid idea. Yeah, let's try to make a baseline on literacy rates. STUPID. </sarcasm> EDIT: I'm a political science major, and on campus, people know it. So when the big anti-war rally was a few days ago, everyone expected me there. Now they ask me why I wasn't. "Well, see, I actually went to class." Right now, protesting war and the government is "cool". That's the only reason at least half the people are doing it. Bear in mind that I about slapped the taste out of someone's (that's read: ultra conservative) mouth when he started shooting off. This whole thing is basically turning into a namecalling expedition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 12, 2003 The stock market will go up once Saddam is removed and the fears of war are over. What war are you speaking about? The only threat of war is falling on the Iraqi people. Saddam is only the beginning so if there is a threat now, then it will be multiplied ten fold once everyone finds out it aint gonna end after Iraq(supposing Bush is re-elected). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 We're still going to have uncertainty when we get rid of Saddam. Also, consider the following quotes before completely denying the influence of an administration: "He [bush] obviously has not been very effective. People knew when they listened to Clinton that there was something behind him. There was Bob Rubin, there was an economic team. I don't think the markets see anything behind this President's words." - Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep) New York Times (8/12/02) "With the economy wobbling and the stock market rolling, the President needs the A-team of economic advisors. Unfortunately. . .he doesn't have one. He barely has a C-team, when it's functioning at all. Its members are tone-deaf to Main Street, Wall Street, and Capitol Hill - in some cases defiantly so" - Jeffrey Birnbaum, Fortune Magazine (9/2/2002) I've got more, but you can't completely discount the fact that Bush has a large role in where this economy has headed. Blame the war, blame the recession, blame Clinton... but you've gotta throw the blame back on Bush at some point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Did I say he didn't influence the economy? Did I? I said CONTROL. He can work to try and make things happen, but he can't snap his fingers and make it go. Hell, Clinton didn't either, he just rode off of the effects of previous administrations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 12, 2003 I've got more, but you can't completely discount the fact that Bush has a large role in where this economy has headed. Blame the war, blame the recession, blame Clinton... but you've gotta throw the blame back on Bush at some point. Correct. I will be the first to say it isn't 100% Bush's fault, however all he has offered in relief or "upwards swing" is a meansly little tax cut that didn't really make a difference, and when pressed on the issue, all he has to offer is ANOTHER tax cut which will never work since we are gonna have to spend 10x the money we were in order to fund this war, so if somehow the new tax cut gets passed, I don't think ANY program/function will be off limits to getting cut. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 That's not true at all. He had good advisors who encouraged the economy. He had good programs which decreased unimployment. He had fiscal discipline, which encouraged the economy even more. He (and, of course, his advisors) put us on the path to pay off the national debt by 2009. Bush, on the other hand, has sent us back into a deficit by giving major tax cuts which don't stimulate the consumer. The upper 1% tend to save money... THAT'S HOW THEY BECAME THE UPPER 1%! Such stupid decisions have a negative and lasting effect on the economy, as does having incompetent advisors. Also, condescending posts aren't necessary. Feel free to make yourself feel big by continuing, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 12, 2003 That's not true at all. He had good advisors who encouraged the economy. He had good programs which decreased unimployment. He had fiscal discipline, which encouraged the economy even more. He (and, of course, his advisors) put us on the path to pay off the national debt by 2009. Bush, on the other hand, has sent us back into a deficit by giving major tax cuts which don't stimulate the consumer. The upper 1% tend to save money... THAT'S HOW THEY BECAME THE UPPER 1%! Such stupid decisions have a negative and lasting effect on the economy, as does having incompetent advisors. Also, condescending posts aren't necessary. Feel free to make yourself feel big by continuing, though. Damn, I can't believe how rude I was. Well....better late then never: WELCOME BACK TYLER~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Thankee. I <3 U GUYS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Yes. Welcome back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted March 12, 2003 I'm not going through this whole thread, but I think those 'hippies' have every right in the world to do what they have done. I don't think it is right, but they have the rights as Americans to do what they want. Just because you are American, doesn't mean you should be patriotic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 12, 2003 I'm not going through this whole thread, but I think those 'hippies' have every right in the world to do what they have done. I don't think it is right, but they have the rights as Americans to do what they want. Just because you are American, doesn't mean you should be patriotic. Ah. Only in America. It's still vandalism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 12, 2003 It's still destruction of property. And I could have fucking sworn that burning a flag was a felony. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 12, 2003 And I could have fucking sworn that burning a flag was a felony. I remember something years back where it was definitively declared legal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted March 12, 2003 They made it againts the law to burn a flag during the early 90s. Then some dude said, 'Hey, it is my freedom to burn a flag'. The Supreme Court talked about it, and over turned the law. Yeah, you are right AS. It is vandalism, and that is wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Indeed. Well, you learn something new every day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest swan Report post Posted March 12, 2003 I'm not going through this whole thread, but I think those 'hippies' have every right in the world to do what they have done. I don't think it is right, but they have the rights as Americans to do what they want. Just because you are American, doesn't mean you should be patriotic. I'm coming over to your house to fuck it up to protest the protestors. Did ya read the story? They destroyed private property? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wwF1587 Report post Posted March 12, 2003 FUCK THEM thats all I have to say.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BobbyWhioux Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Did ya read the story? They destroyed private property? Heh. Only in America could an honest, sentimental, respectful monument to innocent victims of a horrific, barbarous slaughter be cheapened, raped, and debased by being reduced to the level of becoming "private property." "Private Property's been damaged! Oh My God! Sound the alarms! Crush the heretics! Nevermind the people memorialized there, think of the Property Damage! Think of the Property!" And by the way, Dissent is NEVER unpatriotic in a democracy. It can be stupid, it can be reckless, it can be counterproductive to the causes ostensibly endorsed by the dissenting party, it can even be, depending on its form, in violation of some laws, but never can it be unpatriotic in a society governed, in theory, by the debate of its own people. These guys did something stupid, something reckless, regrettable and contemptable, but they weren't unpatriotic at all. And, since it's come up, neither is anyone whose ever burned an American flag. It's just a piece of frickin' cloth. Get over it. It don't mean shit next to the PEOPLE of America, and the ideas and laws that America is built on. You know, freedom, n' shit. Like, the freedom to do stupid shit. Like rename french fries or watch reality TV shows, or be a dumb thug who smashes up property because its "cool" or something to be an irreverent and disrespectful assclown towards something that people are still sensitive to. And the freedom to bug the shit out of people to join your religion. "Hey buddy, my granddaddy died for that flag!" Really? Gee, I bought mine. Just popped on down to the local store. No violence was necessary. "Yeah, he died for that flag in the Korean War!" Wow, what a coincidence, it says here mine was Made in Korea. Small world, eh? See, that's the problem. Nobody has ever died for a flag, and if someone has, they're a fucking idiot. The flag is just a representation. Nothing more. It's the finger pointing to the moon, it's not the moon. And it can be made quickly, cheaply, and in mass quantities, too. It's not like we've got only one copy it or something... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted March 12, 2003 "Only in America could an honest, sentimental, respectful monument to innocent victims of a horrific, barbarous slaughter be cheapened, raped, and debased by being reduced to the level of becoming "private property." What are you talking about? The memorial was on private grounds, and a few anti-war extremists attacked it when they had no business doing so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Flag burning very much IS legal, it's an expression of free speach as ruled by the Supreme Court. People have tried to pass an amendment outlawing it, but it's never got much support. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Flag burning very much IS legal, it's an expression of free speach as ruled by the Supreme Court. People have tried to pass an amendment outlawing it, but it's never got much support. Like I said. Only in America. You hate the country enough to burn the flag, and then use the countries basic rights to protect yourself. There is just something ungodly funny about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 12, 2003 It's not always used as a message of hate, although it's a stupid gesture of protest, IMO. Start with flag burning, then the slippery slope leads you to arrests when you speak negatively about the government. Soviet Russia all over again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 12, 2003 It was a criminal act, and they should be arrested and jailed. End of story. I don't care if they protest the war, but they can't destroy things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
